MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970153237 · doi:10.4000/jtei.2144

TEI Pedagogy and TAPAS Classroom

2019· article· en· W2970153237 on OpenAlexaff
Julia Flanders, Syd Bauman, Ashley Clark, Benjamin Love, Scott Hamlin, William J. Quinn

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Text Encoding Initiative · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDigital Humanities and Scholarship
Canadian institutionsEston College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogyMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper focuses on recent work by the TEI Archiving, Preservation, and Access Service (TAPAS) on pedagogy with TEI, and specifically on a recent initiative called “TAPAS Classroom” focused on exploring pedagogical uses of TEI. We provide some background on TAPAS, describe several case studies involving pedagogical partners who used TAPAS in teaching, and finally describe the TAPAS Classroom initiative and its outcomes.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.007
Scholarly communication0.0100.009
Open science0.0020.014
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.209 · 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
GenreMethods

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 venueJournal of the Text Encoding InitiativeSame topicDigital Humanities and ScholarshipFrench-language works237,207