MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903426813 · doi:10.22492/ije.6.3.04

Artificial Intelligence and the Student Experience: An Institutional Perspective

2018· article· en· W2903426813 on OpenAlexaff
Kriti Khare, Brian Stewart, Anshuman Khare

Bibliographic record

VenueIAFOR Journal of Education · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Political scienceSociologyPsychologyMathematics educationEngineering ethicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper outlines the potential for Artificial Intelligence (AI) to positively impact student success. This will be approached from a student life-cycle perspective, taking an integrated view of the student experience and identifying where AI can be most beneficial. Current usages of AI in education will be considered, in addition to those being experimented with and those still being considered. The paper will view the adoption of AI in education from a comprehensive perspective, considering technological, social, political, economic, cultural and ethical factors, providing a frame for understanding of the benefits and constraints of the most intelligent of information technology in the educational realm. AI has started to emerge in educational institutions in the form of chat bots that are being used to provide student services as well as providing learning supports. Automated paper grading has started to be used, while academic advising and assessment are being trialed.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0200.007
Open science0.0010.012
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.321 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations93
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIAFOR Journal of EducationSame topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207