MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Educational Mini-Clips in Distance Learning

2009· book-chapter· en· W2504474812 on OpenAlexaff
Robin Kay

Bibliographic record

VenueIGI Global eBooks · 2009
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicOnline and Blended Learning
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPaceDistance educationControl (management)Computer scienceCLIPSInstantMathematics educationArtificial intelligencePsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It is undeniable that distance learning has grown rapidly over the past five years. With over 12 billion dollars spent on online learning in 1998 (Burgess & Russell, 2003) and a growth rate of 30%-40% per year since then (Harper, Chen, & Yen, 2004; Hurst, 2001; Newman, 2003), it is safe to say that distance education is firmly established in many businesses and universities. One well-established advantage of distance learning is that a student controls the time, pace, and pathway of learning (Burgess & Russell, 2003; Pierrakeas, 2003). This control over learning is very appealing to a user, particularly when customized or just-in-time support is readily available (Harper, Chen, & Yen, 2004). Providing effective, timely support, though, puts considerable strain on instructors and tutors, if they are available (Harper et al., 2004; Levine, 2003; Wallace & Wallace, 2001). It is challenging to provide just-in-time help because delay is inevitable. The use of e-mail or online discussion necessitates a time lag between question and response. Instant messaging systems (IMS) are another option, however, it is cost prohibitive to have instructors and tutors available 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Furthermore, IMS might be limited in the type of question that could be answered – complex formulas and equations, for example, are difficult to explain using this medium.

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)0.005
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: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.425

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1270.042

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.308
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; 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIGI Global eBooks→Same topicOnline and Blended Learning→French-language works237,207→