MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096504276

the Canadian Education Statistics Council

2002· article· en· W7096504276 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Improvement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumCoherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Capacity buildingProcess (computing)Scale (ratio)Perspective (graphical)State (computer science)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The driving question for this review is: What are the important dimensions of capacity building for ICT integration in education that have been identified, articulated, and experienced in different jurisdictions outside of Canada, and that have not [yet] been disseminated in the traditional research publication channels. We identified 12 Research and Development (R & D) initiatives involving 14 countries that either make explicit connection between national or state policies and research & development, have national or international scope, or both. We present the capacity building process that emerged out of studying the source, partners, activities, and results of R & D initiatives. The following dominant themes were identified: 1) The vision underlying educational reform, 2) partnerships, 3) leadership, 4) connectivity and access, 5) curriculum requirements, 6) teacher professional development, and 7) assessment of learning. We observe capacity building mostly around a few existing innovations in education: the networked computer, knowledge building, and collaborative project-based learning. Exciting results are growing out of the greenhouse R & D initiatives. Will efforts to scale them up lead to the loss of their rational and their innovative dimension? Too few studies consider both a leading-edge pedagogical practice of ICT-supported knowledge building in the classroom and an advanced perspective on school leadership and governance. We conclude generally that countries are acting proactively but are still far away from seeing network-supported innovative practices in teaching and learning being sustainable or adopted on a large scale. Such practices would be in coherence with the discourse on the knowledge society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.328
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.082 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Assessment and ImprovementFrench-language works237,207