MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3047153235 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n7p24

The Analysis of the Influence of Information Environment on the Efficiency of Training Future Masters for Research Activity

2020· article· en· W3047153235 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ihor Bopko, Bogdan Kryshchuk, Liudmila Romanovska, Yuriy Bryndikov, Natalia V. Synyuk

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Training (meteorology)Quality (philosophy)PsychologyProfessional developmentKnowledge managementMedical educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article presents the results of research on the problem of training future masters of humanities for research activity under the conditions of the information environment. The authors reviewed scientific literature, determined the mainstreams of the future masters’ training for research activities, and the dynamics of their readiness for these activities, studied the influence of the information environment of higher educational institutions on the level of the development for research activities. They also developed the provisions for methodological recommendations. The information environment is understood as the possibility to obtain the necessary data, evidence, hypotheses, theories, etc. Much attention is paid to ensuring the quality of professional training through the introduction of stagewise higher education, the formation of the future masters’ professional mobility under the labour market conditions. Based on the review of psychological and pedagogical literature, we determined the pedagogical conditions for the development of future masters' readiness for research activities: ensuring the future masters’ training within the modern information environment; formation of the future masters’ motivation for research activities in the information environment; introduction of a competent approach into the future masters of humanities training; ensuring the integration of academic subjects in the future masters’ training for research activity. Based on the results of the study, we determined the main tasks of further research. The authors confirmed the reliability of the research results by the Student’s t-test and Fisher’s F-test.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.067
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.067
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEducational Methods and Teacher DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207