MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2608120482 · doi:10.1109/pst.2016.7906956

How students regard trust in an elearning context

2016· article· en· W2608120482 on OpenAlexaff
Natasha Dwyer, Stephen Marsh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicKnowledge Management and Sharing
Canadian institutionsOntario Tech University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNegotiationPerspective (graphical)Context (archaeology)TrustworthinessPreferenceComputer scienceProcess (computing)World Wide WebKnowledge managementInternet privacyPsychologySociologyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper explores what constitutes a trustworthy message in the context of e-learning. We did this by asking students to produce messages that they believed people like themselves would trust and then analyzed the data they produced. Coming from a user experience (UX) perspective, our interest is in improving the design of e-learning systems. We found that students reinforced and reiterated several of the ideas about trust expressed in the literature, emphasizing the notion that trust is an intuitive process. Students used the messages to explain how to negotiate and interrogate the university system. The messages produced by the students indicate awareness that individuals have differing priorities when it comes to trust and their preference in engaging with systems.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.294 · 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

Citations9
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicKnowledge Management and SharingFrench-language works237,207