Response to Lubin and Reio, “From the Standpoint of Instructional Designers: Critically Investigating the Coordination of ID Contributions to Collaborative Online Course Development”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This response provides a response to the Lubin and Reio article, Response to Lubin and Reio, “From the Standpoint of Instructional Designers: Critically Investigating the Coordination of ID Contributions to Collaborative Online Course Development.” Specifically, it explores persistent gaps in the literature on the relationships between faculty and of instructional designers when designing asynchronous online courses in higher education: (a) lack of the perspectives of faculty and administrators in the research; (b) a lack of a formal definition of collaboration and, along with that, a consideration of the other roles that instructional designers play in higher education; (c) issues regarding the status of faculty and instructional designers in higher education; and (d) copyright ownership issues and their impact on working relationships. The response argues that, until the research explores these issues, the ability of this line of research to effectively advocate for change in the relationships between faculty and instructional designers is limited.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".