MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4248773162 · doi:10.4324/9780203983065

Theoretical Principles of Distance Education

2005· book· en· W4248773162 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Desmond Keegan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

According to UNESCO statistics, 10 million of the world's 600 million students study at a distance. Theoretical Principles of Distance Education seeks to lay solid foundations for the education of these students and for the structures within which they study. As a more industrialised form of education provision, distance education is well adapted to the use of new communication technologies, and brings to education many of the strengths and dangers of post-industrialism. The central focus of the study of distance education is the placing of the student at home or at work and the justification of the abandonment in this form of education of interpersonal, face-to-face communication, previously considered to be a cultural imperative for education in both east and west. This book explores the problems that distance education poses to the theorist, bringing together an international team of distance educators to address these issues for the first time in a systematic way. The team comprises theoreticians, administrators, experts in educational technology and adult education, experts in learning from video machines, from computers and other forms of technology. Contributions from Italy, and Scandinavia contrast with viewpoints provided by scholars from the US, Canada, Australia, and the UK.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.054

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.010

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 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

Citations155
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207