MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Personalized Learning and Online Instruction

2018· book-chapter· en· W2804468141 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in educational technologies and instructional design book series · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPersonalized learningCritical thinkingComputer scienceVariety (cybernetics)Higher-order thinkingInclusion (mineral)Mathematics educationOnline learningMultimediaPsychologyTeaching methodCooperative learningArtificial intelligenceCognitively Guided InstructionOpen learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This development of digital inclusion with personalized learning has had an impact on how courses are designed and delivered. To that end, a behavioral approach that combines digital with personalized learning is CAPSI (computer-aided personalized system of instruction). In CAPSI, students decide when and where to study course material and where and when to take a test on their learning. The changes occurring in higher education also need to incorporate the development of critical thinking skills. CAPSI is highly adaptable to developing critical or higher-level thinking based on Bloom's taxonomy; CAPSI's emphasis on written answers, providing feedback, and writing appeals leads to higher order thinking. To assess student satisfaction, questionnaires given at the end of a course show that many students find CAPSI to be beneficial to their learning. Also, due to its flexible design, CAPSI is highly modifiable and can be used in all courses in a variety of locations and with students at different educational levels.

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 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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.719
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.243 · 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