MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203559172 · doi:10.18870/hlrc.v11i2.1252

A Conceptual Continuous Improvement Framework to Examine the "Problems of Understanding" Applied Research

2021· article· en· W3203559172 on OpenAlexaffabout
Silvie MacLean

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Learning Research Communications · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsFanshawe CollegeWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConceptual frameworkSocial constructivismSociologyConstructivist teaching methodsThe Conceptual FrameworkPoliticsFace (sociological concept)Best practicePublic relationsKnowledge managementEngineering ethicsPedagogyPolitical scienceTeaching methodSocial scienceComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objectives: Improving performance to meet strategic priorities, such as teaching balanced with increased applied research activities, has developed into a central, though contentious, discourse for faculty in Ontario colleges. The aim of this article is to analyze and better understand why faculty are not engaged in applied research practices. Method: This article draws from social cognition theory and a social constructivist perspective. The literature review examines the evolution of colleges in Ontario, including the political factors and symbolic artifacts that shape values and organizational practices. This study sought to explore how a conceptual continuous improvement (CI) framework might advance our understanding of the policy shifts between applied research discourses within Ontario colleges in Canada and barriers that faculty face to enact applied research practices. Results: Underpinned by a set of simple principles, including improving through communication, learning through collaboration, and changing through coordination, the conceptual CI processes and systematic method provide opportunities to bridge the different contexts and unveil the varied on-the-ground realities of faculty teaching and research tasks. Conclusions: The findings reveal developmental needs and adaptive institutional challenges related to applied research practice changes have been influenced by political, cultural, and socio-cognition contexts and tasks. Implication for Practice: The inventive conceptual CI framework provides a viable means to analyze the fragmented state of applied research practices across Ontario colleges, which may ignite conversations and inform decision-making as well as suggest approaches to change at other global postsecondary education institutions. The innovative conceptual CI framework analysis tool will be of interest to faculty, institutional leaders, faculty unions, and policymakers.

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)0.039
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.961
Threshold uncertainty score0.246

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0390.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.009
Science and technology studies0.0060.054
Scholarly communication0.0160.015
Open science0.0050.007
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.657
GPT teacher head0.571
Teacher spread0.086 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainMethods
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

Citations3
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Learning Research CommunicationsSame topicEvaluation of Teaching PracticesFrench-language works237,207