MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2004075352 · doi:10.1109/ictee.2012.6208663

Tracing student learning process in mixed-initiative learning environments

2012· article· en· W2004075352 on OpenAlexaff
Kevin Haghighat, Clayton Clemens, Vive Kumar, Kinshuk Kinshuk

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourseworkDeliverableComputer scienceProcess (computing)Active learning (machine learning)Mathematics educationLearning stylesTracingTracking (education)EngineeringPedagogyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceSystems engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While traditional learning assessment pedagogical methods adequately evaluate student coursework deliverables, active tracking of students' learning process presents an abundance of insight as to each individual habits, styles, and highlight areas of difficulty throughout the learning experience. This paper outlines the basis for two active iCore projects, MILE and MI-Writer currently undertaken by researchers at Athabasca University in the area of mixed-initiative interactions.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.155
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207