MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4245967551 · doi:10.33423/jhetp.v20i4.2991

Adult Journalling: A Method of Learning and of Assessment

2020· article· en· W4245967551 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Higher Education Theory and Practice · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsk priceValue (mathematics)PsychologyProcess (computing)PedagogyComputer scienceBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational journal writing fosters a more personal and intense engagement in the learning process. Journalling allows the learner to “connect” with what is being learned. It permits the learner to reflect on personal learning, to pull together what has been learned, and to identify how to use the learning. Reflective educational journalling is a method of learning and of assessment. This study identified the value of journals for the African participants. Values included having a voice, establishing and nurturing collegial relationships, and being free to ask questions within a safe milieu. Reflective journalling requires stamina; it requires commitment from everyone.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.685
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.464 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Higher Education Theory and PracticeSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207