MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007104000 · doi:10.3991/ijim.v3i1.753

Client Mobile Software Design Principles for Mobile Learning Systems

2009· article· en· W2007104000 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 Interactive Mobile Technologies (iJIM) · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware portabilityMobile WebMobile computingMobile stationMobile deviceMobile databaseMobile phoneMobile technologyMultimediaComputer networkWorld Wide WebOperating systemBase station

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In a client-server mobile learning system, client mobile software must run on the mobile phone to acquire, package, and send studentâ??s interaction data via the mobile communications network to the connected mobile application server. The server will receive and process the client data in order to offer appropriate content and learning activities. To develop the mobile learning systems there are a number of very important issues that must be addressed. Mobile phones have scarce computing resources. They consist of heterogeneous devices and use various mobile operating systems, they have limitations with their user/device interaction capabilities, high data communications cost, and must provide for device mobility and portability. In this paper we propose five principles for designing Client mobile learning software. A location-based adaptive mobile learning system is presented as a proof of concept to demonstrate the applicability of these design 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.822
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0040.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.289 · 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