MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139602444 · doi:10.1109/cie.2002.1185955

Approaches to peer-to-peer learning in the adult disadvantaged population

2003· article· en· W2139602444 on OpenAlexaffabout
Larry Katz, Elizabeth Chang, Jacqueline Lyndon, Charles T. Scialfa, A. Rezaei, C. Aizenman, Gail Kopp

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisadvantagedProcess (computing)KinesiologyInstitutionKnowledge managementPopulationConceptual frameworkMultimediaMedical educationComputer sciencePedagogyEngineering managementSociologyEngineeringPolitical scienceSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper concerns the design of the Collaborative Open Learning Technologies (COLT) project, led by Dr. Larry Katz, Faculty of Kinesiology, University of Calgary. COLT partners include: Calgary Smart Communities, First Nations (Tsuu T'ina), and iW Technologies. In addition, Bow Valley College, a diversified secondary institution encompassing career training and upgrading, is a research partner providing students and research staff. The objective of the COLT project is to provide the adult, disadvantaged learner with the concepts needed for skills acquisition in computing and technology use, through collaborative approaches. This process will be supported by computer communications and multimedia technologies. Success will be defined by learners acquiring the requisite skills with improved conceptual understanding, and increased employment potential.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.008
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.160
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

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

Citations2
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207