MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2729368149 · doi:10.18162/ritpu.2008.153

10.18162/ritpu.2008.153

2016· dataset· fr· W2729368149 on OpenAlexaff
Vivek Venkatesh, Kamran Shaikh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedataset
Languagefr
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Theories of cognitive information retrieval can work in concert with those of educational psychology to better formalize self-regulatory processes, such as task understanding, in online learning. Results from a prior statistical exploration of 38 graduate learners using a topic map (ISO 13250) index to browse an online repository of instructor-annotated essays in order to complete an ill-structured essay task indicate improved performance and task understanding. This follow-up study analyzes the inductive content of interviews and computer-based user traces for a theoretical sample of 12 of these 38 learners, showing how the semantic nature of the topic map enabled them to pursue distinct paths to browse essays according to individual task understanding and information need.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.549
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.4510.722

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.311 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207