Exploring international collaborative writing groups’ potential for community-based academic development around public SoTL
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on a new version of the ISSOTL (International Society of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning)-basedInternational Collaborative Writing Groups (ICWGs), which has a specific focus on public scholarship.In this study, we focus on the community-based elements of the ICWGs-Public, and in particular on community-based academic development, including cross-institutional and international collaboration aspects of ICWGs-Public.In this qualitative study, we use Wenger and Wenger-Trayner's communities of practice evaluation framework, which outlines seven levels of value, to explore the potential outcomes and benefits of ICWGs-Public, based on a series of semi-structured interviews with participants.ICWGs-Public show potential as a model for cross-institutional community-based academic development, particularly if the community of practice has a strong central focus, in this case public SoTL.Community-based academic development may therefore have an important role to play in extending SoTL beyond the academic realm.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.055 | 0.089 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.039 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".