MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4247333236 · doi:10.21225/d5002v

On-line Learning For Abused Women and Service Providers In Shelters: Issues Of Representation And Design

2000· article· en· W4247333236 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Katy Campbell, San San Sy, Kathleen Anderson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of University Continuing Education · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicStalking, Cyberstalking, and Harassment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFormative assessmentThe InternetPublic relationsService (business)Service providerSociologyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebBusinessComputer sciencePedagogyPolitical scienceMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The challenge and potential of Internet technology to deliver learning services to increasing numbers of diverse learners who may not be included in formal continuing education settings are beginning to be addressed. VIOLET (http://www.VIOLETnet.org), a web site for abused women and their service providers, is designed to provide relevant legal information, an on-line community for support and sharing of experience and information, and on-going updates of legal information and community services. The project emerged out of a unique collaboration among women in many local and national communities and organizations and the Legal Studies Program at the Faculty of Extension, University of Alberta. Together they developed a safe space on the Internet for abused women, inclusive of gender, language, cultural, and learning style issues.A technology that widens access to information may also present barriers to access. In this paper we explore some of these barriers and their implications for the design of information resources and learning environments for abused women. These issues are described using an account of the formative evaluation of the project's web site.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.175
Threshold uncertainty score0.979

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of University Continuing EducationSame topicStalking, Cyberstalking, and HarassmentFrench-language works237,207