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
This short paper describes a research project which aims at investigating how students conceive and use open educational practices (OEP). A recent definition by Cronin (2017) emphasizes collaboration, participation and learner empowerment to encompass “collaborative practices that include the creation, use, and reuse of OER, as well as pedagogical practices employing participatory technologies and social networks for interaction, peer-learning, knowledge creation, and empowerment of learners” (2017, p. 4). Researchers and educators alike have considered the role of OEP in more effectively engaging learners in the co-creation of knowledge, critically considering how digital practices and open platforms can be used in practice. Early research on OEP focused on adoption and development of OER (Cronin & MacLaren, 2018), but has recently shifted student perceptions of impact (Jhangiani, Dastur, Le Grand, & Penner, 2018, Lin, 2019) and improved student learning and empowerment (Hodgkinson-Williams & Trotter, 2018). However, there are gaps in our understanding of learner experiences in other dimensions of openness, such as negotiating identity, privacy, visibility, literacy and the co-construction of knowledge. As educators we need to consider how the structures of these spaces will influence the open teaching practices we are using, both in how they may make our spaces permeable, and in how they might make them more impenetrable. If we want our learners to be able to explore what we as educators see as the benefits of open practices, such as co-creation and sharing of knowledge, then we need to explore both their perceptions and direct learning experiences. The focus of this project will be on students' perceptions of openness in education, exploring their identities as open educational practitioners and how they negotiate their open educational spaces. Participants will be situated in an online graduate program (including multiple courses) designed around open educational practices, including open platforms and open educational resources, and endeavouring to include learners in critical digital pedagogical practices. To explore learner practices, the following research questions will be explored using a virtual ethnographic case (Hine, 2008): What are learners’ understanding of open educational practice? How do they see themselves navigating open platforms, open digital pedagogies and practices and critical digital perspectives? What practices, values and/or strategies are shared by learners who are working within an open educational practice framework?
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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