MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1494082758 · doi:10.18608/jla.2014.13.25

Critical Factors In Data Governance For Learning Analytics

2014· article· en· W1494082758 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

VenueJournal of Learning Analytics · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLearning analyticsAnalyticsCorporate governanceComputer scienceData analysisData scienceContext (archaeology)Software analyticsKnowledge managementBusiness analyticsData governanceData miningBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper identifies some of the main challenges of data governance modeling in the context of learning analytics for higher education institutions, and discusses the critical factors for designing data governance models for learning analytics. It identifies three fundamental common challenges that cut across any learning analytics data governance model, viz., the ownership of the learning analytics data sets, its interpretation and the enacting of decision-making on the basis of this learning analytics data. It also proposes a set of high-level requirements that are necessary for modeling data governance for learning analytics.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.904
Threshold uncertainty score0.992

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.294 · 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