Encouraging People to Learn Islam in a New Interactive Way Using Augmented Reality (AR)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The augmented reality (AR) has been recognized to be fit for use in education. Augmented Reality is globally used for education standard curriculum. Text, graphics, video and audio can be superimposed into a student’s real time environment. Textbooks, flashcards and other educational reading material can contain embedded “markers”, but only when it were scanned using an application, it produce supplementary information to the student rendered in a virtual multimedia format. For instance, Construct3D, a Studiers tube system, allows students to learn mechanical engineering concepts, math or geometry. This is an active learning process in which students can learn and interact with technology directly. The aim of this study is to show how by using can encourage people to learn Islam in a new interactive media using .The objective is to investigate the type of AR feature that can be use and to identify potential of learning using AR. A survey was done to know about people opinion about implementing AR in learning Islam by giving questionnaire to be fill in by 50 people in University Teknologi Malaysia. 90% of the responder agreed that AR can help in learning Islam in more interactive way.Keywords: Augmented reality; medium; Islamic study; interactive; educational
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it