MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Keys to Developing a ‘High Tech, High Touch’ Pedagogy

2025· book-chapter· en· W4416201691 on OpenAlexaff
Mary James

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Mary's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Constructivist teaching methodsKey (lock)Educational technologyElectronic learningDigital learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This chapter explores the necessary synergies between digital technologies to support a constructivist pedagogical approach. Determined the success of any technology as being dependent on how deeply it shapes the human experience: ‘high tech/high touch’. In a digital learning environment, students and tutors need to be able to cultivate quality human interactions which enhance learning and where intellect, imagination and critical engagement are continuously at play. The author proposes what a ‘high tech, high touch’ pedagogical approach may look like and identifies the techniques which could underpin such an approach.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.005

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.238 · 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
GenreOther

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 topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207