It’s Happy Hour Somewhere: Videoconferencing Guidelines for Traversing Time and Space
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time seems to be moving at lightning speed with busyness unsustainably being “celebrated” and not allowing for sufficiently deep interaction with learning content, others, and the experience of which we are part, including our interactions in videoconferencing sessions. One benefit of videoconferencing is that it can address time and distance boundaries. With this advantage also comes a challenge - the pressures of time and time not being used purposefully often negatively impact the online learning experience and the digital wellness of its participants. Considering that, the reported study inquired: what are the videoconferencing guidelines in relation to temporal space to support digital wellness in online learning in higher education? Drawing on a systematic review of the relevant literature of the last decade, temporal guidelines have been distilled to promote the design of videoconferencing-based learning that is conducive to successful learning while maintaining digital well-being. The article organizes the literature review findings according to the categories identified through the secondary data analysis of its three preceding studies. Based upon 42 articles that met the inclusion and exclusion criteria in the first phase of the research design, we negotiated and determined thirteen temporal guideline themes described as time management, essentialism, purposefulness, agility, social presence, attention, inclusion, cooperation, respect, technology preparedness, creativity, evaluation, and safety. Further research is recommended to explore the various aspects of design in more depth and tackle the less frequently addressed themes of creativity, evaluation, and safety, focusing on pedagogy and human-centred approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".