MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2222493434 · doi:10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2015.664

Uso do processo de avaliação mútua como suporte ao estudo colaborativo em ambientes de EaD

2015· article· pt· W2222493434 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Anielton Nascimento, Clauirton Siebra

Bibliographic record

VenueAnais ... Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsMaterials scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This work aims to use the mutual evaluation process as a way to assist students in developing their skills through activities and resources that encourage discussion of the content being addressed. This idea is based on works of literature, which indicate that discussion in small groups (4-5 participants are able to improve student learning. Given that there are no studies that show how such discussion may be motivated in distance education, we will address the process of automatic mutual evaluation so that we can identify possible deviations from manual mutual evaluation approach.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.600
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.289 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnais ... Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na EducaçãoSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207