MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7036512235

Business Computer Skills 102 — Teaching MSOffice 2013 in the Classroom

2017· article· en· W7036512235 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks (Central Washington University) · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusAttendanceCurriculumContext (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Two full Quarters teaching Business Computer Skills 102 (BUS 102) in the classroom (Fall 2015 and Winter 2016) were examined in the context of pedagogical best practices. BUS 102 had been singly taught via online classes (computer-mediated communication, or CMC) in previous years at the three Central Washington University (CWU) campuses. Fall Quarter of 2015 was the first term in which it was taught in the classroom (face-to-face, or FtF) in the Ellensburg, WA campus of CWU. The author of this paper is the original instructor for the FtF sections of BUS 102 in Ellensburg. Teaching at the university level for the first time as well as ascertaining the best possible syllabus structure for the FtF curriculum is addressed intermittently throughout the different sections of this paper. When students' didactic needs were better matched (FtF vs. CMC modalities), their grades improved. The theory that there is an inversely proportional relationship between attendance and tardy records to final grades is also proven by hard data and demonstrated therein. In essence, this paper covers the didactic hurdles and subsequent instructional findings attained during the first two Quarters of FtF BUS 102 at the Ellensburg CWU Campus.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.210 · 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
GenreMethods

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
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks (Central Washington University)Same topicInformation Systems Education and Curriculum DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207