MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065160210 · doi:10.1145/1536274.1536285

A novel sorting animation

2009· article· en· W2065160210 on OpenAlexaff
John Edgar, Toby Donaldson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnimationSortingComputer scienceVisualizationComputer graphics (images)PixelComputer animationSorting algorithmSkeletal animationField (mathematics)Data visualizationClass (philosophy)MultimediaComputer facial animationArtificial intelligenceHuman–computer interactionComputer visionAlgorithmMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Algorithm animation has a long history in CS education, and in this paper we describe a novel way to animate basic sorting routines. The idea is to scramble the pixels of a picture, and then use a sorting routine to unscramble them. The resulting animation of moving pixels is both enjoyable to watch, and provides enough clues to figure out what algorithm is doing the unscrambling. We have used this as a class activity in numerous data structures and algorithms courses to test students understanding of different sorting algorithms. In addition to describing how our animation technique works and is implemented we also discuss some of the related work in the field of algorithm visualization, and the importance of student engagement in such visualizations.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.868
Threshold uncertainty score0.130

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207