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 paper outlines work in progress on a national JISC research project on the learner experience of e-learning. The project is named LEX, a contraction of the long name but also a reference to the importance of using the learner's own words in the analysis. The project covers a wide range of post-16 learners including adult, community and work-based learners as well as FE and HE learners, distributed widely across the UK. We describe the development, evolution and implementation of the research methodology, and how we tackled practical problems of reaching such a diverse learner group. We go on to outline three case studies which illustrate how learners describe their approaches to fitting learning into their lives, to accomplishing e-learning tasks, their strategies to overcome problems, and their expectations and experiences of e-learning across a range of educational contexts and technology use. The paper does not present findings or research outcomes, however tentative, since we are only at the start of the analytical phase. The case studies do however indicate some of the issues that learners have raised in the research.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it