MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2974460776 · doi:10.1080/1360144x.2019.1668397

Should we prepare students for active learning classrooms? An unresolved question and two provocations

2019· article· en· W2974460776 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael P. A. Murphy

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal for Academic Development · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsMathematics educationActive learning (machine learning)PsychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In addition to their pedagogical benefits, active learning classrooms constitute an important topic of research and have renewed debates on the impact of the built environment on education. However, this literature sometimes overlooks the experiences of learners by focusing on the design and practice of teaching in active learning classrooms. The article focuses on learners and asks a question through the reflective style of the Renaissance essay: ‘should we prepare students for active learning classrooms?’

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.027
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.071
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.142

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0270.071
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.013
Scholarly communication0.0060.013
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0130.015
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.123
GPT teacher head0.517
Teacher spread0.394 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations9
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal for Academic DevelopmentSame topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207