MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133544137 · doi:10.1007/s42438-021-00222-y

Networked Learning in 2021: A Community Definition

2021· article· en· W3133544137 on OpenAlexaff
Lesley Gourlay, José Luis Rodríguez Illera, Elena Barberà, Maha Bali, Daniela Gachago, Nicola Pallitt, Chris Jones, Siân Bayne, Stig Børsen Hansen, Stefan Hrastinski, Jimmy Jaldemark, Chryssa Themelis, Magda Pischetola, Lone Dirckinck‐Holmfeld, Adam Matthews, Kalervo Ν. Gulson, Kyungmee Lee, Brett Bligh, Patricia Thibaut, Marjan Vermeulen, Femke Nijland, Emmy Vrieling, Howard Scott, Klaus Thestrup, Tom Gislev, Marguerite Koole, Maria Cutajar, Sue Tickner, Ninette Rothmüller, Aras Bozkurt, Tim Fawns, Jen Ross, Karoline Schnaider, Lucila Carvalho, Jennifer K. Green, Mariana Hadžijusufović, Sarah Hayes, Laura Czerniewicz, Jeremy Knox

Bibliographic record

VenuePostdigital Science and Education · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital Education and Society
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 1990s, networked learning (NL) emerged as a critical response to dominant discourses of the day. NL went against the grain in two main ways. First, it embarked on developing nuanced understandings of relationships between humans and technologies; understandings which reach beyond instrumentalism and various forms of determinism. Second, NL embraced the emancipatory agenda of the critical pedagogy movement and has, in various ways, politically committed to social justice With 40 contributors coming from six continents and working across many fields of education, the paper reflects the breadth and depth of current understandings of NL.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.014
Scholarly communication0.0180.022
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0080.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.004

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations124
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePostdigital Science and EducationSame topicDigital Education and SocietyFrench-language works237,207