MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Navigating the Lows to Gain New Heights: Constraints to SoTL Engagement

2019· article· en· W2971750917 on OpenAlex
Andrea S. Webb

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarship of Teaching and LearningPromotion (chess)ScholarshipSociologyHigher educationDeskDisciplinePedagogyPolitical scienceTeaching methodSocial scienceTeaching and learning centerPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Novice Scholarship of Teaching and Learning (SoTL) leaders making the transition from scholarly teaching to SoTL to SoTL Leadership face many challenges within higher education. Not only does traditional academic culture confine most academics to disciplinary silos, but promotion and tenure requirements encourage faculty members to conduct SoTL work “off the side of their desk,” if at all (Boyer, 1990; Dobbins, 2008; Webb, Wong, & Hubball, 2013). This paper shares some of the findings from a recent study that investigated what constrained educational leaders’ understanding of SoTL while enrolled in a SoTL Leadership program at a Canadian research-intensive university. The paper will also explore implications for the support and enrichment of educational leadership.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.065
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0650.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0130.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.138
GPT teacher head0.437
Teacher spread0.299 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it