MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7138893198 · doi:10.1108/qrde-09-2010-0002

Graduates of the New Learning Environment

2010· article· en· W7138893198 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dale Kirby, Dennis Sharpe, Monique Bourgeois, Melanie Greene

Bibliographic record

VenueQuarterly review of distance education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationPostsecondary educationPreferencePerceptionOnline learningClass (philosophy)Learning environment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While web-based courses have had a growing presence in Canadian secondary schools since the mid-1990s, there has been very little study of the transition of high school distance e-learners to further study at the post-secondary level. To address this area of deficit in distance education research this article reports on a study designed to examine high school distance e-learners’ participation in postsecondary education as well as their perceptions of online learning following high school graduation. A short follow-up survey as well as in-depth interviews of students from the class of 2008, which included students who participated in distance e-learning courses in high school and others who did not, suggested that high school distance e-learners had a preference for university studies. While high school distance e-learners did not appear to be more likely to participate in online learning at the postsecondary level, they described a number of ways in which their distance e-learning experiences in high school had helped them to prepare for postsecondary studies. Some of the implications for online learning at the secondary school level are discussed.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0820.014

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 head0.303
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueQuarterly review of distance educationSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207