MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399073924 · doi:10.4324/9781003272496-17

Visualising seascapes

2024· book-chapter· en· W4399073924 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark Leather, TA Loeffler

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicTravel Writing and Literature
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this chapter, two case studies, involving university students in St. John’s Canada, and Plymouth England, are presented. The first case examines how the tutor utilises the seascape of the island of Newfoundland to nurture a deeper sense of place, as well as adventurous learning, in undergraduate students. Building on strong visual representation of this rugged North Atlantic island, students capture and explore their learning experiences of the seascape in visually based learning portfolios. These are powerful reflective tools that both tutor and students utilise to further cross-curricular connections to the seascape, maritime culture, and places of historical significance. In Plymouth, Place based outdoor education is an undergraduate class. Drawing on place-responsive outdoor education, literature students are provided with opportunities to collectively explore the rich maritime heritage of Plymouth and investigate their attachment to place. Visual methods are utilised in teaching and assessment, as are lived experiences, photographs/videos, as well as historical images. Sailing in Plymouth Sound, and exploring the land from the water, allows students to experience similar seascapes as Drake, The Pilgrim Fathers, Cook, and Darwin. Using photo-elicitation allows students in both contexts to make meaning from their experiences of seascapes.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0260.002

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTravel Writing and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207