MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2063234143 · doi:10.1177/0273475309344806

Learning to Click

2009· article· en· W2063234143 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

VenueJournal of Marketing Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClickerDisadvantagedPsychologyMathematics educationMedical educationPedagogyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The incorporation of personal response system (PRS) clickers into teaching pedagogy has created implications for teaching practice and student satisfaction. Using a current undergraduate business student population, the authors measure student attitudes and preferences and identify student performance outcomes relating to the use of PRS clickers. Study results validate the broad applicability of this technology by showing positive student attitudes, learning experiences, and the mitigation of barriers toward acceptance of this technology. Importantly, measures of student performance correlate to self-reported learning outcomes realized through using PRS clickers. The study also finds evidence that PRS clickers benefit those students who are frequently disadvantaged in the classroom. Specifically, students with a low need for cognition or facing cultural barriers are shown to have a better learning experience when using clicker technology. The article concludes with recommendations on applying PRS clicker technology to teaching practice and identifies areas for future investigation.

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)0.024
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0240.023
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.428
Teacher spread0.403 · 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