MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Descriptors of Quality Teachers and Quality Digital Games

2009· book-chapter· en· W2487427966 on OpenAlexaff
Teddy Moline

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceReading (process)MultimediaTask (project management)Digital learningMathematics educationDigital nativeOrder (exchange)PsychologyWorld Wide WebEngineeringPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quality teachers and quality digital games (video and computer) are dynamic resources that experience ongoing changes based primarily on their interactions with learners. Characteristics of these resources have been, and will continue to be researched and identified in order to discover ways to improve student learning. This chapter uses the descriptors of one of these resources, quality teachers, to illustrate how the same characteristics are integral to effective digital games. North American youth now spend more time on digital gaming activities than they spend watching TV or reading (Greenberg, 2004; Prensky, 2005), prompting educators to become familiar with the ‘quality teacher’ traits of digital games that keep learners on task and learning. By using the descriptors of quality teachers to evaluate digital games, educators will gain a better understanding of why digital games are effective learning tools.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.004

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations3
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooksSame topicOnline and Blended LearningFrench-language works237,207