MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1880135400 · doi:10.21432/t2ww2s

Evaluating the Viability of Mobile Learning to Enhance Management Training

2011· article· en· W1880135400 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Iain Macdonald, Jason Chiu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMultimediaComputer scienceBlended learningM-learningMobile deviceLearning ManagementMobile technologyEducational technologyFlexibility (engineering)The InternetWorld Wide WebE learningPsychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A qualitative research project was conducted to test the viability of augmenting an e-learning program for workplace learners using mobile content delivered through smart phones. Ten learners taking a six week web-based e-learning course were given smart phones which enabled them to access approximately 70% of the course content, in addition to having access to the full course via a standard e-learning website. Mobile content was provided in a variety of forms, including text, audio and video files, a mobile multiple-choice quiz website, and links to streaming videos. Study participants who were regular users of mobile phones found the mobile learning materials to be user-friendly, offering increased convenience and flexibility. Use of the mobile content tended to increase as learners spent more time in their day away from locations where Internet-linked computers could be found. Video was found to be the most effective means of presenting content, followed by audio and text. The most promising role of mobile learning appears to be to augment rather than replace e-learning or blended learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.041
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.041
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Learning and TechnologySame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207