MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401852468 · doi:10.1007/s10758-024-09776-9

Aligning Digital Educational Policies with the New Realities of Schooling

2024· article· en· W4401852468 on OpenAlexaffabout
Deirdre Butler, Margaret Leahy, Amina Charania, Peiris Meda Gedara, Therese Keane, Thérèse Laferrière, Kohei Nakamura, Hiroshi Ueda, Stefania Bocconi

Bibliographic record

VenueTechnology Knowledge and Learning · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicDigital literacy in education
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
FundersDublin City University
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Agile software developmentEconomic growthPolitical scienceMacroCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Sociology of EducationSociologyPublic relationsSocial scienceEconomicsGeographyManagement

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract To make sense of the changes provoked by the Covid-19 pandemic and its immediate aftermath, this paper critically examines digital education policy responses in the context of the ‘new realities’ faced by schooling. Based on seven case studies contributed by authors from Australia, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Canada, Sri Lanka, two key questions are addressed: (1) What are the ‘new realities’ of schooling post Covid-19? and (2) How have digital educational policies changed in response to the new realities of schooling? Findings highlight the complexity of the problem of aligning digital education policies at the macro level to the realities experienced at the meso and micro levels of schooling systems. The paper concludes with discussion of the need for, and challenges of, agile policy making at all levels (macro, meso and micro) that are necessary for schooling systems to meet the challenges and realities of a complex changing world.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.016
Scholarly communication0.0120.008
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTechnology Knowledge and LearningSame topicDigital literacy in educationFrench-language works237,207