MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414685852 · doi:10.47408/jldhe.vi37.1722

Starting from scratch: creating a new learning development provision

2025· article· en· W4414685852 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Alexandra Weaver, Sara-Jane Postill

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Learning Development in Higher Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersManchester Metropolitan UniversitySouthampton Solent University
KeywordsWork (physics)ApprenticeshipInstitutionLearning developmentResource (disambiguation)Professional developmentAcademic institutionFocus group

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BPP University provides degree and professional qualifications across our Schools of Business, Law, Nursing and Technology, predominantly at postgraduate level, but with a growing undergraduate portfolio. We are also the second largest provider of apprenticeships within the UK and have an international reach, with provision as far afield as Canada and Australia. There are eight locations in the UK, with four in London alone, and we have over 35,000 students globally, 16,000 of whom are international students from over 100 different countries. The institution does not currently have a dedicated learning development team. In early 2025 a group of librarians and learning and teaching specialists came together to create an online academic and study skills resource to support students with their academic skills needs. The project has a strong focus on co-creation with students. We aim to create resources to enhance the student academic skills experience, with a focus on accessibility and ensuring that students’ needs are met through collaboration with them. In this practitioner mini keynote, we outlined the project approach and outcomes so far and invited our delegates to discuss the following prompts: How have you enhanced the accessibility of resources at your institution? Do you co-create with students and work with them to understand their needs? Have you sought to understand the impact and value of the academic skills resources within your institution? And if so, how?'

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0100.012
Open science0.0030.024
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 Learning Development in Higher EducationSame topicHigher Education Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207