MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2017632085 · doi:10.1109/ictee.2012.6208662

Towards a framework definition for learning process engineering supported by an adaptive learning system

2012· article· en· W2017632085 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsViewpointsProcess (computing)Computer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Diversity (politics)Set (abstract data type)Adaptive learningActive learning (machine learning)Human–computer interactionArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The work presented in this paper is related to the area of learning process engineering (LPE) which focuses on learning process construction supported by an adaptive learning system. This area has emerged in response to an increasing awareness that existing learning processes are not well suited to the needs of the learners, the teachers, the tutors, the system administrators and the system designers. We propose a faceted framework to understand and classify issues in learning process construction. This latter identifies four different and complementary viewpoints. Each view allows us to capture a particular aspect of the learning process. In order to study, understand and classify a particular view of LPE in its diversity, we associate a set of facets with each view. While a facet allows an in-depth description of one specific aspect of LPE, the views show the variety and diversity of these aspects.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Quick stats

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicE-Learning and Knowledge ManagementFrench-language works237,207