MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3200170974 · doi:10.1002/tl.20457

Reflective journal writing as a tool for student engagement in the undergraduate classroom: An intersectional analysis of experiential learning

2021· article· en· W3200170974 on OpenAlexaff
Rukhsana Ahmed, Radamis Zaky

Bibliographic record

VenueNew Directions for Teaching and Learning · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsWomen's and Gender Studies et Recherches FéministesUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningJournal writingStudent engagementReflective writingPsychologyPedagogyMathematics educationHigher educationExperiential educationTeaching method

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Through an intersectional analysis, this article examined undergraduate students’ use of reflective journal writing as a student engagement tool by helping students to apply course concepts and theories to personal experiences and thus promote experiential learning.

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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.008
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.449
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 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew Directions for Teaching and LearningSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207