The influence of electronic mail on communication patterns among educators /
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the late 1990s, the Ministere de l'Education du Quebec (MEQ) undertook a reform program that would reframe the educational system. Technology and pedagogy were seen as needing realignment to better meet a student-centered, technology-driven, lifelong learning experience. The New Reform as this new framework is known will be fully implemented by 2008 and educators are its pivotal agents. With Information and Communications Technologies being central to the new reform, this qualitative study looks at educator use of the most widely used Internet application, electronic mail. Very little research has looked at how pervasive electronic mail has become among educators and how it is affecting their multidirectional, multilayered roles as educators. Data originate from respondent electronic mail, a literature review, and the author's personal experience. Outcomes, reached through inductive analysis, reveal that educators continue to experience difficulty manipulating electronic mail technology even though they appreciate its multiple advantages. How electronic mail can facilitate networked communication and educator teamwork to better translate the MEQ's new reform successfully is the focus of this study. Implications derived from the outcomes are discussed in view of enhancing ongoing contributions by Quebec educators.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".