MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007009667 · doi:10.1117/12.723321

Supporting online learning with games

2007· article· en· W2007009667 on OpenAlexaff
Jingtao Yao, Dong‐Won Kim, Joseph P. Herbert

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTreasureThe InternetClass (philosophy)Game based learningProcess (computing)MultimediaWorld Wide WebResource (disambiguation)Artificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study on Web-based learning support systems that is enhanced with two major subsystems: a Web-based learning game and a learning-oriented Web search. The Internet and theWeb may be considered as a first resource for students seeking for information and help. However, much of the information available online is not related to the course contents or is wrong in the worse case. The search subsystem aims to provide students with precise, relative and adaptable documents about certain courses or classes. Therefore, students do not have to spend time to verify the relationship of documents to the class. The learning game subsystem stimulates students to study, enables students to review their studies and to perform self-evaluation through a Web-based learning game such as a treasure hunt game. During the challenge and entertaining learning and evaluation process, it is hoped that students will eventually understand and master the course concepts easily. The goal of developing such a system is to provide students with an efficient and effective learning environment.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.024

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.002

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations7
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207