MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981838247 · doi:10.5753/wei.2019.6630

Uma Avaliação Experimental do Uso de um Framework Gamificado para a Disciplina Algoritmos e Equivalente

2019· article· pt· W2981838247 on OpenAlexaff
José Carlos Quaresma, Marianne Kogut Eliasquevici, Sandro Oliveira

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience and Education Research
Canadian institutionsFuture Earth
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHumanitiesPhysicsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Este artigo apresenta uma forma de avaliação e validação de um framework gamificado para o processo de ensino e aprendizado de Algoritmos. Na pesquisa relatamos o planejamento abordado para o experimento, a avaliação a partir da matriz SWOT adaptada para as práticas trabalhadas em sala de aula, os casos particulares que aconteceram, os dados quantitativos gerados pela gamificação. A principal contribuição do trabalho é informar que a gamificação promove engajamento e possibilita o ensino e aprendizado de algoritmos, a partir do uso de um framework.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.090

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.348 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScience and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207