MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2944010206 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v8n3p29

A Teaching Model for Undergraduate Students

2019· article· en· W2944010206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kakyung Ahn

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationFlipped classroomClass (philosophy)Computer scienceGaussTeaching methodFlipped learningMathematicsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mathematics, along with the need for logic and thinking, is becoming more important in many fields. Therefore, many universities in Korea have opened and operated a college basic math course to improve basic math skills for freshmen in science and engineering. The new generation of digital generation is creative, familiar with cooperation and active. They are already rapidly changing and ready for new education, and education needs a new paradigm to evolve. Flipped Learning is being suggested which is well known as a teaching method which lets students learn the contents they will learn in advance through the advance online video and have a discussion through the team interaction in the main class for them to solve the assignment through the cooperation in a self-initiated way. In this study, we have taken a merit of flipped learning, made a model of Gauss Jordan elimination method in matrix that students cannot easily understand in the lecture. Here, we will introduce a teaching model that combines flipping learning and existing lecture methods.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.003

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207