Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ever-changing digital context, digital habits and pressures, demands and practices, often contribute to online learners experiencing burnout, stress, fatigue, sleep deprivation, cognitive overwhelm, and work-life imbalance, just to mention a few issues identified in literature. With the rise of online learning offerings, an increasing number of educators across diverse contexts and disciplines are faced with questions pertaining to the optimal experience and design for online learning. Current research has highlighted both positive and negative impacts of teaching and learning in the digital space. This online learning design debate has identified a need for practices that contribute to the holistic wellbeing of learners rather than merely cognitive outcomes. There is a need for an evidence-based pedagogical framework centred on wellbeing that enables the creation of learning “by design”. This research, applying secondary data analysis and a mindfulness-informed lens, results in such a framework, i.e., the DW-FOLD: Digital Wellness Framework for Online Learning – to guide intentional use of technology and online learning pedagogical principles that ensure active and meaningful learning while using technology for the good of all learners.
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 | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".