MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408542743 · doi:10.3138/jelis-2023-0060

(Re)designing an Online Course in Archival Science Using the ADDIE Model: Lessons Learned and Future Directions

2025· article· en· W4408542743 on OpenAlex
Siham Alaoui

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Education for Library and Information Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental Research and COVID-19
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsADDIE ModelInstructional designCourse (navigation)Online courseComputer scienceMathematics educationLibrary scienceSociologyPedagogyMultimediaPsychologyEngineeringCurriculum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reflects a teaching experience in an archival science program offered by a Quebec university. With the aim of redesigning an online course in records management intended for undergraduate students, by incorporating more recent aspects in the course curriculum, a pedagogical approach based on the ADDIE model (analysis, design, development, implementation, and evaluation) was chosen to meet learners’ needs. This contribution outlines the instructional design of the course and emphasizes the various processes executed in each phase. The challenges encountered are highlighted, possible solutions are presented, and future research avenues are suggested.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.024
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.348 · 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