Using App Inventor as Tool for Creating Mathematics Applications for Mobile Devices with Android OS
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
People are programming on their personal computers since the 1980s, but today's mobile applications are making computing as “personal” as never before. Never in the history of the use of technology in education has there been a technology so widely available to citizens as mobile technology. According to this trend, we are moving into a new era of consuming information via mobile computing, one that promises greater variety in applications, highly improved usability, and networking. Our consuming information culture gives us all sorts of opportunities for entertainment, even learning using high-tech devices, which are considered to be black boxes to most of us, because only few people can create applications. Even though, more and more students are interested in developing their own mobile applications. In this context, we present our experience with App Inventor - a user friendly platform and drag-and-drop block language to create Android apps. The present paper is an intro to the creation process for an applied mathematics app, started 4 years ago, corresponding to the requirements of our classroom consuming information culture.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it