MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133495266 · doi:10.29173/iasl7892

Discussing the Theory and Practice of Propelling Class Reading Club from the Aspect of Knowledge Management

2021· article· en· W3133495266 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shu-Hsi Hsieh, Sheng-Lung Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIASL Annual Conference Proceedings · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)Power (physics)SociologyCompetition (biology)TreasuryManagementLawPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 21st century, knowledge economy has been growing rapidly. In order to strengthen knowledge competitiveness and face the international competition of the new century, Taiwan should achieve the educational goal of lifelong learning, widely build up learning organizations, tend citizens who can learn through lives, and positively give impetus to whole people reading program. To meet the coming of learning society, knowledge management has become the key to tap the treasury of library-using education. Knowledge can be fully developed only by close sharing and intellectual interchange. Thus, it can diffuse effectively.
 Reading and pursuing knowledge are the motive power of working out one’s potentialities and inciting creative thinking. “Knowledge is power” is a wise saying of Francis Bacon, a British philosopher. He also stated, “Histories make men wise; poets, witty; the mathematics, subtle; natural philosophy, deep; moral, grave; logic and rhetoric, able to contend.” This statement brings out very profound meanings. It verifies that reading can not only absorb the essence of books, but broaden one’s general knowledge. The Btitish Education Secretary, David Blunkett, said, “Turning the pages of a book is to open a window on the world. Books are the foundation on which other learning can be built.” The saying well indicates that reading is the communication between mind and mind. It is also a valuable secret of being vigorous and keeping away from loneliness.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.734
Threshold uncertainty score0.451

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.278 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIASL Annual Conference ProceedingsSame topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207