MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402745508 · doi:10.18357/otessac.2023.3.1.244

Framework for Evaluating the Creation and Adaptation of Open Textbooks

2023· article· en· W4402745508 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Melissa Ashman

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsKwantlen Polytechnic University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Process managementComputer scienceKnowledge managementPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in dramatic growth in the use of open education resources, such as open textbooks, as classes moved online around the world. This highlighted the importance of evaluating the creation and adaptation of open textbooks used in online courses. In reviewing the research literature, I found existing rubrics or frameworks were outdated and lacked criteria that are important in today’s digital age. Therefore, I synthesized the evaluation and quality criteria from 31 articles into a single framework, which online instructors can consider using as they create or adapt an open textbook. The criteria include content, accessibility, technology, open licenses, instructional design, and a new category I termed verification.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
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 score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association ConferenceSame topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207