MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Pliant-Based Software Tool for Courseware Development

2009· book-chapter· en· W2485885011 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicUsability and User Interface Design
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceUsabilitySoftwareFlexibility (engineering)The InternetWorld Wide WebMultimediaHuman–computer interactionOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The increasing importance of e-learning has been a boosting element for the emergence of Internet-based educational tools. As we move into the information age, tremendous efforts are made in the development of new information and communication technologies for educational purposes. The ultimate goal is to facilitate elearning methodologies and acquisition. The chapter’s contribution is in the area of open source software for technology-enhanced learning. First, we report on the capabilities of Pliant, a novel software framework for Web-based courseware development. Pliant’ design features upon which e-learning capabilities are built are presented, showing that Pliant has some advantages over existing software, including flexibility, efficiency, and universal usability. A case study of the use of Pliant in the project “Multilanguage Database for Localization” developed at the CUSB School of Translation is presented. Second, we present Academia,3 a Pliant-based courseware development Web portal, and its use in translation studies at CUSB.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.501
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.226 · 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