Reimagining the 4M Framework in Educational Development for SoTL
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we seek to contextualize our work in SoTL-focused educational development and those who work to support others in SoTL, as interstitially spaced across the 4M Framework, re-envisioned as a flexible but formalized professional continua. The establishment of a model for educational development SoTL-related activity allows for the opportunity to explore how this work is done in a systematic manner. We offer our ideas and visions through, what we term, the 4M Continua for Educational Development as a possible understanding of the work that SoTL-focused educational developers do, as well as those who engage in educational development more broadly. While the 4M Framework provides a guide through four interrelated organizational lenses: micro; meso; macro; and mega, we have adapted a model to situate educational development work using the 4M Framework to inform the ways in which we do, contribute to, consume, advocate, and support SoTL broadly, including at local, provincial, national, and international levels. The 4M Continua can be an avenue for those who do educational development to describe their work, where the work is situated, and how support can be offered throughout the community.
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.
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 | 0.010 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 it