The hidden circulum in education : an additional learning challenge for certain students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For our new teaching team, the establishment of a new nursing program at Cégep Gérald-Godin has been an opportunity to take another look at the values underlying our concerted educational approach. With a view to promoting the success of as many of our students as possible, several of which are new immigrants and unfamiliar with Quebec’s educational context, we\nwanted to use strategies that would foster the development of their professional judgment and reasoning ability. The diversity of students’ prior educational and school-related experiences in college and university classrooms today has resulted in students with a wide array of learning strategies, conceptions, and values. Some of these elements can constitute serious obstacles to learning when they diverge from what is expected in a particular program or on the job market. As\nteachers, we must not underestimate the potential impact of these factors on the success and interpersonal relationships of students as well as the consistency of their education. Do all education systems value critical thinking and its expression? Does everyone have the same understanding and perception of the autonomy we generally expect of students in higher education? Are all students comfortable with active learning?\nAre the inherent values of certain subjects and their issues taught explicitly, on par with technical, scientific, and practical knowledge (Raisky & Loncle, 1993)? Are the fundamental values behind the stance and paradigm in which teachers conceive their professional actions explicit enough to enable students to adjust their attitudes and behaviours and then go on to achieve academic success?
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.025 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".