MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Relationship between Scholarly Teaching and SoTL: Models, Distinctions, and Clarifications

2011· article· en· W93951586 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityConceptual modelSociologyEpistemologyManagement scienceComputer scienceKnowledge managementSocial scienceEconomicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examine, through conceptual analysis and investigation of the available literature, some commonly assumed models of the relationship between SoTL and scholarly teaching, demonstrate how those models fare against the conceptual and empirical evidence, and propose an alternative that better represents the concepts involved. Both our definitions and the model we choose to represent their relationship impact our decisions regarding policies, programs, and resources. If the assumptions behind these practices are not warranted, our reflexive use, dissemination and propagation of these practices must be questioned.

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.

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)0.033
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.313
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0330.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.325
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.132 · 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