Point of View: Taking the Office Hour Out of the Office
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
Science classrooms across our campus have changed dramatically over the past 10 years as an increasing number of instructors have incorporated a variety of active learning techniques into their teaching practice, using, for example, classroom response systems to poll their students and guided inquiry and case study activities to facilitate small group work (AAAS, 2011; McGill et al., 2019). However, the primary way students interact with faculty outside the classroom remains unchanged: the office hour. Despite evidence that students benefit from office hour visits, low office hour attendance is common. Here, I describe a novel addition to my typical office hours, holding one of my four weekly office hours outside as a group run called the “Active Office Hour.” Students view the Active Office Hour positively, with a subset of my students attending weekly. Active Office Hour participants report their primary motivator for attendance is to seek comradery with their peers and instructor, not the specific activity of running, suggesting alternative forms of out-of-office office hours may work well for different students and instructors.
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 | 0.045 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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