MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139148590 · doi:10.5539/hes.v4n1p94

Validating One-On-One GPS Instruction Methodology for Natural Resource Area Assessments Using Forestry Undergraduate Students

2014· article· en· W2139148590 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Daniel Unger

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicDiverse Educational Innovations Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGlobal Positioning SystemBachelorMean squared errorUnit (ring theory)Assisted GPSGeographyComputer scienceStatisticsPsychologyMathematics educationMathematicsArchaeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Undergraduate students pursuing a Bachelor of Science in Forestry (BSF) at Stephen F. Austin State University (SFA) attend an intensive 6-week residential hands-on instruction in applied field methods. The intensive 6-week instruction includes learning how to use the Global Positioning System (GPS) with a Garmin eTrex HCx GPS unit to accurately calculate area. Students were instructed how to assess the accuracy of their GPS collected waypoints by calculating the Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) comparing their GPS collected area measurements with instructor on-screen digitized area. Student’s average area RMSE between digitized and GPS derived area was 0.015 hectares, whereas instructor’s average area RMSE between digitized and GPS derived area was 0.015 hectares. Over 76% of students measured GPS area was within 5% of instructor on-screen digitized area. No difference between the students and instructors area RMSE of 0.015 hectares and high level of agreement between student measured GPS area and instructor on-screen digitized area: (1) indicates students receiving hands-on instruction in GPS applications can record accurate area measurements after only a limited 2 hour introduction; (2) the accuracy of the Garmin eTrex HCx GPS unit is not user dependent; and, (3) validates the interactive hands-on instruction methodology employed at SFA.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.497
Threshold uncertainty score0.631

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.377
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.078 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicDiverse Educational Innovations StudiesFrench-language works237,207