MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406405563 · doi:10.5539/jel.v14n3p51

Secondary School Learning Management Model for Shanxi, China After Covid-19

2025· article· en· W4406405563 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jie Wang, Winai Thongpuban, Saman Asawapoom

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education and Learning · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Mathematics educationChinaPsychologyGeographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic instigated a global educational crisis, compelling an abrupt transition from traditional in-person instruction to emergency remote teaching. This sudden shift underscored the need for robust learning management models capable of navigating unprecedented disruptions. The objectives of this research were to ascertain the needs and recommendations for designing a post-COVID-19 learning management model for secondary schools in Shanxi Province, and to develop and evaluate the model. We conducted the research in three phases, the initial investigation using survey and interview techniques, the construction and revision of the model by focus-group meeting, and the evaluation of the model by stakeholders. The statistics were used. The findings of the first phase provided the needs of the model and recommendations for its design. We called the learning management model derived from this research the ILAR Model, which included the three elements of Investigation (I), Learning Action (LA), and Reflection (R). The investigation provided student backgrounds for lesson planning; learning action consisted of learning roles, learning resources, and learning activities; and reflection included learning evaluation and learning feedback. The model evaluation revealed the highest quality in all aspects: appropriateness, feasibility, and effectiveness.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.364 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Education and LearningSame topicLeadership, Behavior, and Decision-Making StudiesFrench-language works237,207