The Athabasca University edusource Project: Building An Accessible Learning Object Repository
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Athabasca University - Canada's Open University (AU) made the commitment to put all of \nits courses online as part of its Strategic University Plan. In pursuit of this goal, AU \nparticipated in the eduSource project, a pan-Canadian effort to build the infrastructure for \nan interoperable network of learning object repositories. AU acted as a leader in the \neduSource work package, responsible for the metadata and standards for learning objects. \nIn addition, the team of professionals, academics, librarians and other researchers worked \nto create an accessible repository of learning objects across university departments and \nsubjects. Most critically, the team worked beyond the development of a learning object \nrepository and considered the adaptation of content and related applications, pedagogical \napproaches and the use of learning objects by instructional designers, faculty and the \nlearners themselves. This paper describes one institution's approach to learning object \nrepository development, from a technical and pedagogical perspective, along with some of \nthe lessons learned during the process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".