MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3182808732 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14864

INVESTIGATING THE IMPACT OF ONLINE LEARNING ON ENGINEERING STUDENTS’ SOCIALIZATION EXPERIENCES DURING THE PANDEMIC

2021· article· en· W3182808732 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Juliette Sweeney, Qin Liu, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovations in Education and Learning Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocializationPandemicPerceptionEngineering educationPsychologyLearning environmentCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PedagogyEngineeringSocial psychologyMedicineEngineering management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The global shift to online learning prompted by the COVID-19 pandemic has accentuated how learningonline alters postsecondary students’ socialization experiences and learning outcomes. In December 2020, alarge Canadian engineering faculty surveyed its undergraduate students to assess their learning experiences in the exclusive online environment during the pandemic. This paper used qualitative data from the survey, as complemented by descriptive quantitative results, to explore how the online environment impacted engineering students’ socialization processes and their perception of learning. Using Weidman’s model of socialization, this paper contributes to better understandings of the individual and particularlyenvironmental factors that have influenced engineering students’ socialization processes while they learn online during the pandemic, and the importance of social interactions to student learning in engineering education.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA)Same topicInnovations in Education and Learning TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207