MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157706843 · doi:10.3991/ijac.v3i3.1373

Using Second Life for Just-in-Time Training: Building Teaching Frameworks in Virtual Worlds

2010· article· en· W2157706843 on OpenAlexafffund
Gail Kopp, Martha Burkle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsSAIT PolytechnicUniversity of Calgary
FundersSamsung Advanced Institute of TechnologyUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsMetaverseContext (archaeology)Computer scienceTUTORTraining (meteorology)Work (physics)Knowledge managementVirtual realityVirtual worldInstructional simulationSpace (punctuation)Human–computer interactionEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a framework for using virtual worlds in the construction of teaching platforms for just-in-time training. In the critical economic situation that many companies are currently living, the need to update skills without leaving the workplace has become urgent. Employees are demanding training for higher performances, knowledge and skills, without requesting time to attend university, or leaving their work behind. In this context, the use of virtual worlds has become the way knowledge is shared and accessed, as virtual groups become learning communities. The potential of Second Life as a space to learn and be trained are explored. The characteristics and capabilities of virtual worlds for teaching and learning are examined, the role of the virtual tutor is analyzed, and further areas of research and development are presented.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0060.006
Open science0.0020.008
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Advanced Corporate Learning (iJAC)Same topicEducational Games and GamificationFrench-language works237,207