MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3133855947 · doi:10.5430/jnep.v11n6p67

Strategies for innovative teaching and learning Part 1: Foundational discussion of online learning technology

2021· article· en· W3133855947 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Cynthia M. Thomas, Constance E. McIntosh, Diana Bantz

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationFlexibility (engineering)ModalitiesOnline learningHigher educationMathematics educationSynchronous learningIndependence (probability theory)Computer scienceMedical educationPsychologyMultimediaPedagogyTeaching methodSociologyMedicineCooperative learningPolitical scienceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The evolution from traditional on campus education to the current distance education modalities using online learning and technology systems have changed how higher education is delivered to thousands of students and faculty. Technology is changing how faculty teach and how students earn higher education degrees. Many students are seeking the flexibility, and independence online distance education offers to earn college degrees often without leaving home. However, some faculty may not be experienced at developing, delivering, and evaluating online distance courses to meet the needs of student learners. This initial paper will guide faculty through a short history of distance learning, the positives and negatives of online learning vs traditional on campus learning, advantages and disadvantages of distance online learning, and the initial considerations for establishing an online course.

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)0.006
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.074

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.008
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0060.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0220.003

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.405 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueJournal of Nursing Education and Practice→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→