MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068983728 · doi:10.1145/1806512.1806535

Collaborative problem solving

2010· article· en· W2068983728 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
FieldEngineering
TopicModular Robots and Swarm Intelligence
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCourse (navigation)RoboticsCollaborative learningMathematics educationComputer scienceRobotGraduate studentsEducational roboticsArtificial intelligenceEngineeringPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report describes our experience in teaching an experimental graduate-level course employing collaborative teaching and learning. It was co-taught by four instructors with various backgrounds in computer science, including mecha-tronics and computational geometry. The course was designed to attract students with either systems or theory backgrounds and during the semester, they identified cooperative robotics problems in active areas of research. The course culminated in collaborative projects where teams of students designed, built and programmed teams of autonomous robots out of Lego MindStorms to solve one of the problems identified earlier. We review our experience with this course, both as teachers and as students. Three of us were the instructors and four of us were the students.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations30
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicModular Robots and Swarm IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207