MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2847576947 · doi:10.1177/2042753018785180

E-learning, M-learning and D-learning: Conceptual definition and comparative analysis

2018· article· en· W2847576947 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

VenueE-Learning and Digital Media · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningLearning sciencesEducational technologyActive learning (machine learning)Computer scienceTerminologyCooperative learningSynchronous learningDigital learningM-learningAlgorithmic learning theoryArtificial intelligenceKnowledge managementPsychologyMathematics educationMobile deviceTeaching methodMultimediaWorld Wide WebLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the 21st century, the information and communication technology explosion increases the uses of digital devices for many purposes in the world of work and in formal and non-formal education. This study analyzes existing literature on the basis of the definition of the concepts, terminology used, differences, fundamental perspectives, benefits, disadvantages, and finally the similarities and differences of the e-learning (electronic learning), m-learning (mobile learning), and d-learning (digital learning). It reveals that e-learning and m-learning are subsets of d-learning. On the other hand, some learning tools could be considered as m-learning as well as e-learning.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.244 · 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