MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Instructional Design Rules for Algorithmic Subject Matter

2008· article· en· W1974466741 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

VenuePerformance Improvement Quarterly · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsCollège de MaisonneuveConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject matterComputer scienceInstructional designSubject (documents)MultimediaPsychologyPedagogyWorld Wide WebCurriculum

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithms are essential to computer programming because of their structure and precision. These same characteristics could also be used in the field of instructional technology, but usually aren't because they are viewed as being too complex. This article attempts to clarify their utility by first analyzing the structural and processing characteristics of algorithms. Simple examples are used to illustrate how the design process is influenced by these characteristics. Five instructional design guidelines, or rules, are then presented and discussed. The rules are derived from empirical examinations of algorithm-based learning and conform to the limitations dictated by several information processing principles.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.232
Teacher spread0.211 · 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