Peer Presence and Real-Time Assessment: A Symbiotic Relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Web-based learning environments often use games and simulations to enrich the learning process. Understanding the response of learners to these non-text-based environments is usually accomplished through laboratory testing or field surveys. The click to submit web-form questionnaire is a common method of gathering user feedback, however, these questionnaires are plagued by low response rates and inconsistent results. Research into survey design reveals many potential problems in the construction and administration of questionnaires - problems that are exacerbated by the nature of communication on the web. Intended to promote a sense of community among users and to gather accurate feedback from them, The National Film Board of Canada's NFBkids website fails to obtain useful feedback through its web-based questionnaires. Our study investigates an alternative methodology for gathering user preferences - by exploring solutions for NFBkids. According to preliminary user studies, real-time, peer-to-peer assessment techniques are fun, they foster a sense of peer presence among a community of web users, and they succeed in gathering valuable user feedback.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".