MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991857759 · doi:10.4018/jkm.2011100104

How Should Students Prepare for Exams

2011· article· en· W1991857759 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

VenueInternational Journal of Knowledge Management · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsConestoga College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBest practicePerspective (graphical)Knowledge managementKey (lock)Order (exchange)PsychologyComputer scienceSubject-matter expertMedical educationProcess managementEngineeringBusinessMedicineManagementExpert systemArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study identifies the key best practices College Students should utilize from a knowledge management perspective in order to best prepare for mid-term or final exams. This study also ascertains whether all stages of the knowledge cycle are required in order to achieve success. Data was collected from both subject matter experts and students in regards to exam preparation. The findings suggest that knowledge management may be a useful framework to identify both threshold and exceptional behaviours required to achieve knowledge based goals or outcomes. The findings of this study also provide some validation regarding a methodology which can be used in organizations to identify key best practices related to knowledge management.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.144
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.250 · 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