MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2594081558 · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2001192

CuboCube: Student creation of a cancer genetics e-textbook using open-access software for social learning

2017· article· en· W2594081558 on OpenAlexafffund
Puya Seid-Karbasi, Xin C. Ye, Allen W. Zhang, Nicole Gladish, Suzanne Y. S. Cheng, Katharina Rothe, Jessica A. Pilsworth, Min Kang, Natalie Doolittle, Xiaoyan Jiang, Peter C. Stirling, Wyeth W. Wasserman

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Biology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOpen Education and E-Learning
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyProvincial Health Services AuthorityUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBC Cancer AgencyGenome CanadaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGenome British ColumbiaBC Cancer FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaJohns Hopkins University
KeywordsBiologyClass (philosophy)SoftwareProcess (computing)CrowdsourcingMathematics educationData scienceWorld Wide WebComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Student creation of educational materials has the capacity both to enhance learning and to decrease costs. Three successive honors-style classes of undergraduate students in a cancer genetics class worked with a new software system, CuboCube, to create an e-textbook. CuboCube is an open-source learning materials creation system designed to facilitate e-textbook development, with an ultimate goal of improving the social learning experience for students. Equipped with crowdsourcing capabilities, CuboCube provides intuitive tools for nontechnical and technical authors alike to create content together in a structured manner. The process of e-textbook development revealed both strengths and challenges of the approach, which can inform future efforts. Both the CuboCube platform and the Cancer Genetics E-textbook are freely available to the community.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.589

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS BiologySame topicOpen Education and E-LearningFrench-language works237,207