Employing an experimental approach to evaluate the impact of an intelligent agent
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores a different approach to evaluating the merits of specific technical components of computer based learning applications. A traditional double blind experimental study was implemented in a new context. A computer based Clinical Decision Simulator (CDS) system was designed and implemented incorporating an intelligent agent. This was compared to an otherwise identical system with no agent, and a group of students not using CBL systems. The results suggested that although no improvement in measurable learning outcomes could be conclusively demonstrated there was some evidence that those students using the intelligent agent system demonstrated more positive learning experiences and a deeper conceptualisation of the issues. This would suggest that a comparative multimethod experimental evaluation strategy, although complex (and not without its shortcomings) may help provide a more comprehensive analysis of students learning experience, and provide a useful picture of the student’s perceptions of CBL tools. This novel approach may be of particular relevance where the justification of a specific technological aspect of an e‐learning application is required. The value of developing and using an experimental strategy to evaluate a specific technological aspect of a computer based learning (CBL) application is discussed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it