MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4301153922 · doi:10.5944/openpraxis.5.1.17

Assessment challenges in open learning: Way-finding, fork in the road, or end of the line?

2013· article· en· W4301153922 on OpenAlexaff
Dianne Conrad

Bibliographic record

VenueOpen Praxis · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOpen learningOpen educational resourcesOpen educationAccreditationFork (system call)Diversity (politics)Computer scienceEducational technologyDistance educationKnowledge managementPedagogyTeaching methodSociologyPolitical scienceWorld Wide WebCooperative learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Growing global commitments to open learning through the use of Open Educational Resources (OERs) are accompanied by concerns over what “to do” with that learning when learners present it to traditional institutions for assessment and accreditation. This paper proposes that established RPL (recognizing prior learning) protocols, in place at many institutions worldwide, can offer a pedagogically sound framework that supports the spirit of open learning and respects the diversity of learners’ efforts.

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)0.097
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.150
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.514

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0970.150
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0120.039
Scholarly communication0.0280.055
Open science0.0050.024
Research integrity0.0110.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.181
GPT teacher head0.472
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOpen PraxisSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207