MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2107093540 · doi:10.19173/irrodl.v3i1.70

Software Evaluation Criteria and Terminology

2002· article· en· W2107093540 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Diane Belyk, David Feist

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed Learning · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware Engineering Techniques and Practices
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyComputer scienceSoftwareSoftware engineeringProgramming languageLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This report discusses issues of software selection and terminology, highlighting terms that are useful in evaluation studies.A framework for the evaluation of educational software is presented.Links are cited at the end of this article to the American Society for Training & Development (ASTD), and CNET Network's glossaries of terminology relating to online collaborative methods.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.198
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.375
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.198
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1980.375
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0410.031
Science and technology studies0.0050.013
Scholarly communication0.0220.012
Open science0.0050.008
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.176
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations8
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Research in Open and Distributed LearningSame topicSoftware Engineering Techniques and PracticesFrench-language works237,207