MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388139730 · doi:10.47408/jldhe.vi29.1099

(Re)Imagining higher education: an inspirational guide for academics

2023· article· en· W4388139730 on OpenAlexaff
Sandra Abegglen, Sonia Kamal, Tom Burns, Maryam Akhbari, Sandra Sinfield

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Development in Higher Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Governance and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersBirkbeck, University of LondonUniversity College CorkUniversity of HullUniversity of Portsmouth
KeywordsHigher educationPresentation (obstetrics)ReflexivityPedagogySociologyPower (physics)LaughterAdaptation (eye)PsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We live in times of certain uncertainty with Higher Education in constant need of reflexive adaptation. The Reimagining Higher Education project, funded by the Association for Learning Development in Higher Education (ALDinHE), explored creatively and playfully the future of education. It invited the academic community to participate in workshops to reflect on the current status of Higher Education and, at the same time, to conceptualise what form a humane and integrated Learning Development, the holistic and sustainable fostering of academic literacies and practices, would take within that Higher Education system. The outcome is an open-source guide of Higher Education models, real and idealised, that potentially have the power to change perspectives and attitudes. In this short presentation, we (the project team) will showcase the guide, outlining what a more inclusive, empowering, and creative academia would look like. Our research participants have imaged the unimaginable: universities open, accessible, full of trust, care and laughter. Please join us to further reflect on the future of academia, with hope and positivity.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.016
Scholarly communication0.0130.014
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0060.017
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.011

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 head0.086
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.312 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Learning Development in Higher EducationSame topicHigher Education Governance and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207