MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588463081 · doi:10.1109/ghtc.2016.7857300

Teaching bilingual workshops on data mining in Peru

2016· article· en· W2588463081 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mila Kwiatkowska, Alberto Un Jan

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBiomedical Text Mining and Ontologies
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerminologyFluencyExperiential learningComputer scienceMathematics educationNeuroscience of multilingualismBiomedicineArtificial intelligencePsychologyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes the experiences in offering data mining (DM) workshops at University of Norbert Wiener (UNW) in Lima, Peru. This educational initiative is a result of a longstanding collaboration between the Faculty of Engineering and Business at UNW and Thompson Rivers University in Canada. The workshops were offered in May 2014 and May 2015, and had three learning objectives: (1) to acquire practical skills (hands-on experience) in DM, (2) to solve problems using computer systems in bioinformatics and engineering, and (3) to learn fundamental DM concepts and techniques simultaneously in two languages: English and Spanish. The bilingual aspect of the DM workshops was very important, because the students had not only the opportunity to learn advanced computer skills, but also to learn complex terminology in two languages. Bilingualism (Spanish, English) is an important growth factor for the Peruvian economy, and students' bilingual fluency in technical terminology is mandatory for their participation in the development and use of advanced technologies, such as, applications of DM in biomedicine and engineering. In this paper, we present how we have met these three educational objectives using methods based on experiential learning, problem-based learning, and bilingual education.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical Text Mining and OntologiesFrench-language works237,207