MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190356647 · doi:10.15826/umpa.2021.02.016

Russian Students’ Readiness for Distance Learning: Current Situation and Future Challenges

2021· article· en· W3190356647 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
V. N. Kiroy, Dmitry N. Sherbina, А. А. Чернова, Екатерина Денисова, Д. М. Лазуренко

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity Management Practice and Analysis · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouthern Federal University
KeywordsDistance educationPandemicQuarter (Canadian coin)Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)The InternetContext (archaeology)PsychologyDigital literacyHigher educationMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogyPolitical scienceComputer scienceGeographyWorld Wide WebMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the context of the COVID pandemic, there has dramatically increased the significance of distance learning technologies. Higher education will most probably increase their usage even after overcoming the coronavirus. This paper aims at assessing Russian university students’ readiness to exercise distance learning technologies. The survey within Rostov-on-Don universities provided data on 428 students’ skills in using Internet technologies when studying. It is shown that in the pre-pandemic period, no more than a quarter of students had the necessary skills to participate in video conferences, and about 16 % of students took online courses autonomously. Only 6,5 % of the respondents could manage both technologies that comprise distance learning. The results obtained on the relationship between academic performance and self-participation in online courses, as well as on the relationship of these indicators with general digital literacy and immersion in social networks, should be taken into account within wide computerization of education during the pandemic.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.893
Threshold uncertainty score0.304

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity Management Practice and AnalysisSame topicEducational Innovations and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207