MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

CODE CAMP: A SETTING FOR COLLABORATIVE LEARNING OF PROGRAMMING

2007· article· en· W1971343642 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jari Porras, Kari Heikkinen, Jouni Ikonen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvanced Technology for Learning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCode (set theory)Computer scienceEvent (particle physics)Value (mathematics)MultimediaWorld Wide WebProgramming languageMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Collaborative learning is studied, especially in the light of the code camp approach, in this paper. Code camp means a short, intensive collaborative learning event in which participants work in groups. Two code camp settings and one traditional programming course are presented. Students of the courses completed questionnaires, and the answers were analyzed to establish the value of the code camp approach. It seems that students like the code camp approach, and the results seem to be better than with traditional approaches to learning of programming.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0030.009
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.284 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations10
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvanced Technology for LearningSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207