MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3166087487 · doi:10.31686/ijier.vol9.iss6.3184

COVID-19

2021· article· en· W3166087487 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jeffrey Ludwig

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Innovation Education and Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Quarter (Canadian coin)PandemicStyle (visual arts)Mathematics educationFace (sociological concept)PsychologyTransition (genetics)Online learningComputer scienceSociologyGeographyMultimediaSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

COVID-19 and its ensuing pandemic ignited an atomic bomb on educational systems across the world invoking an emergent and abrupt transition to remote learning. The aftershocks were unpredictable but left a crippled educational system where students were forced into their bedrooms, sometimes deported to their homelands in different time-zones and isolated from their friends and peers. Learning quickly transitioned from social face-to-face interactions to an estranged and detached face-to-computer dependence. Although some introverted students welcomed this transition, many were dissatisfied, and their performance reflected this sentiment. In this study, we compare students’ performance in an undergraduate mathematics class in a large research-intensive university in the Western United States of America over a 2-year time period from 2019 to 2020. This started as a traditional lecture-style course for 3 quarters, transitioned to a hybrid lecture style with integrated adaptive team-based quizzes for 2 quarters, and abruptly changed with the COVID-19 pandemic to online lectures with team-based quizzes for 1 quarter. We demonstrate in our retrospective data analysis that the performance gains from the traditional lecture-style transition to active learning were subsequently lost in the movement to remote learning. We discuss the many obstacles that may have accounted for this loss of performance and suggest future directions for improving remote active learning methodologies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.124
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1240.045

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 head0.370
GPT teacher head0.664
Teacher spread0.294 · 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
GenreEditorial

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 venueInternational Journal for Innovation Education and ResearchSame topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207