MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146772354 · doi:10.1109/icpp.1999.797427

Development and application of a distance learning support system using personal computers via the Internet

2003· article· en· W2146772354 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Takashi Yoshino, Jun Munemori, Takaya Yuizono, Yuya Nagasawa, Shohe Ito, Kazutomo Yunokuchi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentre québécois sur les matériaux fonctionnelsKagoshima University
KeywordsBlackboard (design pattern)The InternetDistance educationBlackboard systemComputer scienceMultimediaHuman interface deviceFunction (biology)Interface (matter)Control (management)Human–computer interactionMathematics educationWorld Wide WebArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A distance learning support system using the Internet for communication, which can support 40 personal computers, has been developed. The system supports audio and video communication channels. During Q&A sessions, the teacher and one student can communicate with each other through audio and video equipment. The system is also equipped with two shared cursors (one for the teacher the other for the students) and the Blackboard system and Note system for students. The system has been tested on three different kinds of classes (a lecture on human interface engineering, an exercise on applied mathematics II, and a lecture on high frequency engineering). The results of distance learning experiments suggested: (1) After applying the system to actual classes, we found that the system required the additional functions of a randomly controlled remote-control camera, card materials transfer and an interlocking market. (2) We found that student participants in distance learning felt as if they were in the same building as the teacher. Students wanted to take more distance learning classes, about six times out of 15 times on average. (3) There were seldom questions during school hours. We must improve the Q&A function to increase the number of questions from 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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations12
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207