Back to the Future: What Can We Learn from Current Debates on Educational Technology?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Debates regarding the pros and cons of online course delivery have revealed fundamental values that faculty hold in terms of teaching. This paper discusses contact with students and sanctity of place which are the two values that surfaced most vehemently. The paper argues that online course delivery will not undermine either the contact we value or sanctity of place if we use the technology wisely and continue our dialogue with these basic pedagogical values in mind. Les débats autour des avantages et des inconvénients de cours offerts en ligne ont révélé les valeurs fondamentales défendues par les enseignants par rapport à leur profession. Cet article met l'accent sur deux valeurs qui se manifestent avec le plus de conviction : le contact avec les étudiants et l'importance du lieu. Cet article soutient que les cours en ligne ne menaceront aucunement ces deux valeurs, à condition que l'on fasse preuve de sagesse en abordant l'utilisation des technologies et que le débat à ce sujet tienne compte des valeurs pédagogiques de base que sont le contact et le lieu.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.039 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.031 | 0.064 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".