MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146860943 · doi:10.24908/eoe-ese-rse.v6i0.627

The design of computer-supported collaborative learning environments in higher education

2008· article· en· W2146860943 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicE-Learning and Knowledge Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Collaborative learningField (mathematics)Key (lock)Computer-supported collaborative learningComputer scienceFocus (optics)Knowledge managementLearning designMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The main goal of this article is to analyze the implications of computer supported collaborative learning in higher education. To achieve this goal, we will describe the situation of the current research in this field and will focus our attention on the issues relating to the design of the conditions to promote collaborative processes and knowledge building. In the second part of the article, we will concentrate on the analysis of the results that we have obtained with the use of the programme Knowledge Forum as a support during the collaborative process in higher education.
 Key words:

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.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.585
Threshold uncertainty score0.266

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.221 · 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