Innovation and Progress for the Future of Higher Education: An Introduction to Issue 15.1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
During times of personal and global hardships, when tests of resiliency and optimism for the future seem relentless, I have found a sense of renewed vigor and hope in the commitment that members of our SoTL community continue to demonstrate towards innovation and progress in education.Along with many others in our community, I believe that education is the key to tackling many of the most pressing world issues, and that we are at a juncture in time when our (in)action could steer our futures towards very different outcomes.This issue of CJSoTL, like those that precede it, is a testament to the dedication of our community towards advancing teaching, learning, and human experiences, which in turn can meaningfully elevate the trajectories of individuals, their families, and their communities.I'm grateful for the values, organization, efforts, and generosity of all the members of our SoTL community, and I'm honored to be a part of it.Special thanks to all who contributed to this issue, and to three members of our editorial team who have concluded their terms of service: our first Co-Editor,
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 | 0.011 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".