MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2197182356

Adaptive or Collaborative Learning

2008· article· en· W2197182356 on OpenAlexaff
Stephan Weibelzahl, Paul De Bra, Alexandros Paramythis, Peggy A. Ertmer, François Desjardins

Bibliographic record

VenueTU/e Research Portal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCollaborative learningOpposition (politics)Adaptive learningComputer scienceKnowledge managementPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adaptive Learning Technologies and Collaborative Learning have both been explored and argued for repeatedly. While the two approaches are not in opposition to each other, they include are a number concepts and aims that are potentially conflict such as optimising the individual learning gain or the quality of collaboration. This panel will explore where these conflicts are, where the limits of technological support for collaborative on-line learning are and how these conflicts might be resolved.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.011
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0190.005

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 head0.311
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTU/e Research PortalSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207