MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414150762 · doi:10.18357/otessaj.2024.4.3.84

ePortfolio Pedagogy: Leveraging Affordances in Digital Spaces by Students and Educators

2025· article· en· W4414150762 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Rita Zuba Prokopetz

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceTechnology integrationExperiential learningEducational technologyCapstoneLeverage (statistics)Instructional designProfessional developmentOnline learningElectronic learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electronic portfolios (ePortfolios) are technological tools with many purposes. Students can showcase their achievements, instructors can assess their students, and both learners and educators can engage in a deeper level of learning and critical reflection. As a capstone project at the end of a course or program of studies, the ePortfolio is an innovative instructional strategy that enables students to learn to use the technology while learning about its affordances in their online learning community. As part of a growing movement, ePortfolio pedagogy includes instructional practices that align with 21st-century thinking and encourage students to rely on their online environment to learn and co-construct knowledge. This digital pedagogy is an effective form of professional self-development that aims to help educators leverage on what they have to offer in their own practice as they learn to embrace a value-based approach to teaching. The ePortfolio is prominently positioned as an innovative way for educators to relearn their craft, design learning, and facilitate online instruction.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 venueThe Open/Technology in Education Society and Scholarship Association JournalSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207