MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Virtual Performance Assessment in Immersive Virtual Environments

2011· book-chapter· en· W2497768917 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

VenueAdvances in game-based learning book series · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceInstructional simulationVirtual learning environmentPerceptionVirtual realityHuman–computer interactionMultimediaPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Validating interactions in immersive virtual environments (IVE) used in educational settings is critical for ensuring their effectiveness for learning. The effectiveness of any educational technology depends upon teachers’ and learners’ perception of the functional utility of that medium for teaching, learning, and assessment. The purpose of this chapter is to offer a framework for the design and validation of interactions in IVEs as they are linked to learning outcomes. In order to illustrate this framework, we present a case study of the Virtual Performance Assessment (VPA) project at Harvard University (http://vpa.gse.harvard.edu). Through our framework and case study, this chapter will provide educators, designers, and researchers with a model for how to effectively design immersive virtual and game-based learning environments for the purpose of assessing student inquiry learning.

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), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.969
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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.271 · 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