MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4378382739 · doi:10.1515/9781553395560

Learning Outcomes, Academic Credit and Student Mobility

2020· book· en· W4378382739 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooks · 2020
Typebook
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is increasing interest in the use of learning outcomes in postsecondary education, and deliberations have surfaced with regard to their potential to serve as a tool for advancing credit transfer. Learning Outcomes, Academic Credit, and Student Mobility assesses the conceptual foundations, assumptions, and implications of using learning outcomes for the purposes of postsecondary credit transfer and student mobility. Through a critical review of current approaches to the use of learning outcomes across national and international jurisdictions, scholars and practitioners in postsecondary education provide a multivalent examination of their potential impacts in the unique context of Ontario and recommend future directions for the system. The collected works are the culmination of a multi-year study entitled Learning Outcomes for Transfer, funded by the Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer. Contributions are authored by prominent international scholars across countries with significant outcomes-based experience and education reforms (South Africa, the United States, Australia, Europe, and the United Kingdom) and an Ontario research consortium comprising college and university experts working to advance student pathways.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Evaluation · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.998
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.294 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
DomainEvaluation
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMcGill-Queen's University Press eBooksSame topicHigher Education Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207