MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Semantic Approach to Modeling of the Fund of Assessment Means

2018· article· en· W2896646699 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gulnara Yakhyaeva, A. R. Absayduleva

Bibliographic record

VenueVestnik NSU Series Information Technologies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLibrary sciencePolitical scienceVocational educationSociologyComputer scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Zindinova N. S. Creation of the funds of assessment means in the framework of the discipline with consideration for introduction of the federal educational state standards of higher vocational education // Вестн. Омского университета. 2014. № 2 (72). С. 182–184. 2. Профессиональные стандарты в области информационных технологий. М.: АП КИТ, 2008. 616 с. 3. Титаренко С. А. Контрольно-оценочные средства как мера форсированности профессиональных и общих компетенций // Проблемы и перспективы развития образования (IV): Материалы Междунар. науч. конф. Пермь: Меркурий, 2013. С. 133. 4. Perez-Jimenez A., Reyes-Zurit F. (Eds.). Feedback between universities and companies // 7th International Technology, Education and Development Conference (INTED). Valencia, Spain, 2013. Р. 2916–2923. 5. Sofjina V. N., Gribanova D. Y., Melenevskaja O. Y. Monitoring of Students’ Professional Merits at the University // International Scientific Conference on Society, Integration, Education. Rezekne, Latvia, 2015. Р. 215–223. 6. Бахвалов С. В., Берестнева О. Г., Марухина О. В. Применение онтологического моделирования в задачах организации учебного процесса ВУЗа // Онтология проектирования. 2015. Т. 5, № 4 (18). С. 387–398. 7. Смирнов С. В. Онтологический анализ предметных областей моделирования // Изв. Самар. НЦ РАН. 2001. Т. 3, № 1. С. 62–70. 8. Пронина В. А., Шипилина Л. Б. Использование отношений между атрибутами для построения онтологии предметной области // Проблемы управления. 2009. № 1. С. 27–32. 9. Mouromtsev D., Kozlov F., Kovriguina L., Parkhimovich O. ECOLE: Student Knowledge Assessment in the Education Process // WWW 2015 Companion – Proceedings of the 24th International Conference on World Wide Web. 2015. Р. 695–700. 10. Litherland K., Carmichael P., Martinez-Garcia A. Ontology-based e-assessment for accounting: Outcomes of a pilot study and future prospects // J. Account. Educ. 2013. Vol. 31, no. 2. Р. 162–176. 11. Baader F., McGuinness D., Nardi D., Patel-Schneider P. The description logic handbook: Theory, implementation, and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. 12. Пальчунов Д. Е. Моделирование мышления и формализация рефлексии. II. Онтологии и формализация понятий // Философия науки. 2008. № 2 (37). С. 62–99. 13. Пальчунов Д. Е., Яхъяева Г. Э. Нечеткие алгебраические системы // Вестн. НГУ. Серия: Математика, механика, информатика. 2010. Т. 10, вып. 3. С. 75–92. 14. Пальчунов Д. Е., Яхъяева Г. Э. Нечеткие логики и теория нечетких моделей // Алгебра и логика. 2015. Т. 54, № 1. С. 109–118. 15. Yakhyaeva G. Fuzzy model truth values // APLIMAT. 2007. № 6. С. 423–431. 16. Пальчунов Д. Е., Яхъяева Г. Э., Ясинская О. В. Применение методологии онтологического моделирования для задач диагностирования заболеваний позвоночника // Вестн. НГУ. Серия: Информационные технологии. 2015. Т. 13, № 3. С. 42–51. 17. Яхъяева Г. Э., Карманова А. А., Ершов А. А., Савин Н. П. Вопросно-ответная система для управления информационными рисками на основе теоретико-модельной формализации предметных областей // Информационные технологии. 2017. Т. 23, № 2. С. 97–106. 18. Яхъяева Г. Э., Ясинская О. В. Методы согласования знаний по компьютерной безопасности, извлеченных из различных документов // Вестн. НГУ. Серия: Информационные технологии. 2013. Т. 11, вып. 3. С. 63–73. 19. Yang Y., Guan H., You J. CLOPE: A fast and Effective Clustering Algorithm for Transactional Data // Proc. of SIGKDD’02. Edmonton, Alberta, Canada, 2002.

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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.860
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueVestnik NSU Series Information TechnologiesSame topicEducational Innovations and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207