MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2009497181 · doi:10.3115/1599503.1599510

Manifesting embodiment

2009· article· en· W2009497181 on OpenAlexaff
Alissa N. Antle, Chronis Kynigos, Leilah Lyons, Paul Marshall, Tom Moher, Μαρία Ρούσσου

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInnovative Human-Technology Interaction
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLeverage (statistics)Construct (python library)Computer scienceSPARK (programming language)Human–computer interactionKnowledge managementCognitive scienceArtificial intelligencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an overview of a CSCL 2009 panel that brings together five researchers whose work attempts to leverage physical embodiment in the design of technologies to support learning. Through a critical examination of distinctive approaches - design rationales, design features, and learner outcomes - the panel seeks to spark discussion over the principles by which designs might be driven and the role of design instances in advancing our understanding of embodiment as a construct.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.896
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.255 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations4
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Human-Technology InteractionFrench-language works237,207