Acceso y equidad en la educación a distancia: investigación, desarrollo y criterios de calidad Access and Equity in Distance Education: Research and Development, and Quality Concerns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The essence of distance education, and also of open education, is to provide opportunities for learning to everyone who lacks educational possibilities or credentials, without regarding the absence of previous education, social or economic status, or the location of residence. One of the challenges of this type of education has been to convince the other societal institutions that its quality is equivalent to the education imparted by traditional institutions that provide education in face-to-face settings. The assumption of this article is that to reach the social goals of equity and access, open and distance education must be of high quality. This article presents four criteria of quality that may be applied to open and distance education to measure and demonstrate excellence: effort, performance, adequacy, efficiency and process. For each criterion there is a series of questions that an institution can ask to evaluate its degree of quality. The contribution to quality of two types of research, institutional research and mission-critical research, is also described in terms of the experience of a Canadian open university.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".