MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

El avance tecnológico y su impacto en la educación inicial.

2019· article· es· W2955742112 on OpenAlexaff
Efraín Velasteguí López

Bibliographic record

VenueExplorador Digital · 2019
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Technology
Canadian institutionsImpact
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPersonaPolitical scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La educación inicial y sus avances tecnológicos en el ecuador ha desempeñado gran potencial en los niños con un 23.9% en la educación inicial, 12,3% en los adultos y esos no dejas con un 4,8% en la educación superior. Estos datos nos reflejan como los avances tecnológicos han venido revolucionando a nivel académico.
 Por ese motivo la tarea docente implica identificar las capacidades que los nativos digitales necesitan para ser eficaces en esta nueva cultura o modo de ser; recreando metodologías y materiales basados en entornos digitales, aprovechando al máximo su eficacia, pero conservando nuestra humanidad.
 La educación inicial tiene un conjunto de prácticas pedagógicas innovadoras que se han ido consolidando a lo largo del tiempo. En tal sentido, la integración de las nuevas tecnologías a los procesos educativos con los niños pequeños constituye un reto y una oportunidad para modelar y optimizar nuestra práctica docente, respondiendo a la adaptación más rápida e importante que ha experimentado el cerebro en miles de años de evolución.
 Es importante analizar el carácter que las personas y, como tales, también los maestros y los niños establecen con las tecnologías. Cada vez que las usamos para modificar un estado de cosas, a su vez somos modificados por ellas. Por tanto, a jugar con nuevas tecnologías, también se aprende.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0100.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.002

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExplorador DigitalSame topicEducational Innovations and TechnologyFrench-language works237,207