This paper is concerned with the modeling and analysis of quantum dissipation phenomena in the Schrödinger picture. More precisely, we do investigate in detail a dissipative, nonlinear Schrödinger equation somehow accounting for quantum Fokker–Planck effects, and see how it is drastically reduced to a simpler logarithmic equation via a nonlinear gauge transformation in such a way that the physics underlying both problems keeps unaltered. From a mathematical viewpoint, this allows for a more easily achievable analysis regarding the local wellposedness of the initial-boundary value problem. This simplification requires the performance of the polar (modulus argument) decomposition of the wavefunction, which is rigorously attained (for the first time to the best of our knowledge) under quite reasonable assumptions.

This paper implements a novel approach to analyzing the degree of Collective Cognitive Responsibility (CCR) in a Knowledge Building community, based on socioeconomic and scientometric measures. After engaging in Knowledge Forum (KF) discussions for one semester, 36 students identified impactful ideas in their portfolios, which were then used to develop their impact scores. These scores were then transformed and plotted along the Lorenz Curve and the Gini coefficient to visualize the degree of equidistribution of recognition in the community and, by extension, the degree of collective responsibility shared by members of the community. Additionally, students were classified into member roles based on the impact of their contributions, and we explored the flow of member roles across several discussion topics, based on Price’s model of scientific production. Our results show convergence between peers’ and teachers’ ratings of impactful contributions, which both point to medium levels of collective responsibility in the community. In short, on the one hand, this procedure shows its sensitivity to detect communities that could not comply with the CCR principle. On the other hand, we discuss the necessity of reflective evaluation to address the pedagogical challenge of fostering collective responsibility for knowledge advancement and empowering novel students to take charge of their knowledge work at the highest levels.

The United Nations 2030 agenda includes quality university education, highlighting the importance of writing competence, as a basic skill for the dissemination of sustainable knowledge. However, there is little evidence of the factors that predict effective written communication to support such quality. Among these factors, the literature highlights motivation and writing metacognition, as well as the adequate structuring of the academic and/or scientific genre. The main novelty of the present research is the study of the relationships between the mentioned factors, measured with validated instruments. To this end, content analysis is first applied to determine the rhetorical moves of argumentative essays written by a sample of 72 university students. Secondly, the correlations between each of the rhetorical moves, metacognition and argumentative writing self-efficacy are calculated. The relationships are studied in depth, applying step-by-step linear regression models. Finally, the dependence of the results, observed with respect to unmeasured factors, is contrasted by means of a confirmatory analysis based on structural equations. The analyses show that it is the practical ability to express rhetorical moves—Conclusion and Bibliographic References—which predicts a students’ writing metacognition. Moreover, the minor relationship that argumentative self-efficacy shows with the expression of rhetorical moves, compared to writing metacognition, point to the need to consider another motivational dimension that is driving the learning of the argumentative essay at university level, a hypothesis that is confirmed with the structural equations model. These, and other findings, allow for the establishment of a series of educational quality criteria for the empowerment of written argumentation in academic and scientific contexts.