Mobile Learning: What Guidelines Should We Produce in the Context of Mobile Learning Implementation in the Conflict Area of the Four Southernmost Provinces of Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing typical room based learning in the four southernmost provinces of Thailand includes several limitations. Physical security is the key issue when making journeys to schools and universities and the destruction of physical buildings also poses concrete limitations to existing room based learning in the affected area. With this phenomenon, the accessibility to physical room based class is problematic and limited. In contrast, the accessibility to mobile networks is getting wider; accessibility to mobile devices is also getting cheaper and easier along the time, thus the investigation on how mobile learning could benefits the learners should be conducted. Consequently the research objectives were constructed which are (1) to estimate the current situation in the four southernmost provinces of Thailand, (2) to identify the limitations of existing room based learning affected by the unrest situation in the area, (3) to explore information from government sources and published papers about mobile technology used in the southernmost provinces of Thailand and (4) to construct initial guidelines and recommendations framework when using mobile technology as a learning environment in the school system of the southernmost provinces of Thailand. In order to achieve these objectives, the literature analysis, focus groups, and semi-structured interviews were conducted. From the analysis of the data collected, it was found that the utilization of mobile technology in the four southernmost provinces of Thailand currently still far behind the idea of what mobile learning technology should be. There are several limitations and thus certain guidelines for the mobile learning implementation should be produced.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.031 | 0.059 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".