MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2302971359

A multi-user tabletop display with enhanced mobile visuals for teaching and collaborative training: faculty poster abstract

2016· article· en· W2302971359 on OpenAlexaff
Álvaro Uribe-Quevedo, Bill Kapralos, Andrew Hogue, Kamen Kanev, Michael Jenkin, Reneta P. Barneva

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of computing sciences in colleges · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsYork UniversityOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMultimediaCloud computingMobile deviceLimitingProcess (computing)Collaborative learningInformation and Communications TechnologyHuman–computer interactionAugmented realityFocus (optics)Cognitive loadWorld Wide WebCognitionKnowledge management
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in technology provide access to cost-effective user interfaces that change the way people interact and carry out their daily activities. Massive use of smartphones, tablets, and other portable computing devices is reshaping the world of learning. Novel educational tools provide means to visualize and interact with compelling media, creating a virtual and augmented reality that can greatly enhance the knowledge transfer [5]. Education is also benefiting from various collaborative scenarios where students work together to overcome challenges while improving cognitive and social skills [3]. Indeed, as a way to improve learning, Information and Communication Technology (ICT) has already become an indispensable component of modern educational systems [2]. ICT brings a wealth of online features such as short messaging and chats, forums and groups, IP voice and video calls, cloud-based interactions and shared storage, etc., but it also forces students to focus on the screens of their computing devices and use the content to perform instruction-bound and other tasks. Therefore, despite all benefits that ICT brings to education, it could also have a negative impact on the learning process as it might restrict natural interactions thus isolating students and limiting their experience [1]. Here, we investigate the effectiveness of using heterogeneous computing paradigms (mobile devices and tabletop computers) in a collaborative learning environment.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0590.006

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of computing sciences in collegesSame topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207