MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3083388532 · doi:10.56059/jl4d.v7i1.398

Book Review: Moocs and Open Education in the Global South: Challenges, Successes and Opportunities

2020· article· en· W3083388532 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning for Development · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicMicrofinance and Financial Inclusion
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many Western educators live under the mistaken impression that Massive Open Online Courses are a waning fad that never lived up to the disruptive potential claimed by its early evangelists.However, even so-called educational experts are often unaware of the long-term impact of educational technologies after the initial glow and flush of venture capital has faded.MOOCs certainly fall into this category.Class Central reports that in 2019 some 13,500 MOOC courses were delivered to over 110,000,000 learners worldwide (an annual increase of over 18%).The MOOCs and Open Education book promises to be an important resource for educators globally.It not only provides concrete examples of MOOC and OER use in countries throughout the Global South but also deals with instructional design, effects of government policy, adoption issues, faculty and student perceptions of value, the state of research and more.Thus, it is an important and a timely publication.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.856
Threshold uncertainty score0.243

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.180 · 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