MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3040731737 · doi:10.29173/irie382

Student Centeredness as Innovation

2020· article· en· W3040731737 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Donald Ipperciel

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Review of Information Ethics · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoint (geometry)Product (mathematics)Focus (optics)Service (business)Knowledge managementEngineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineering managementSociologyEngineeringBusinessMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article explores how a focus on ‘student centeredness’ can lead to ‘innovation’ and how innovation can enhance student centeredness. Putting students at the centre of all considerations can unleash their creative and innovative potential. And recent innovations have made it easier to make students the focal point of service delivery. After a description of what we understand under these two guiding concepts, a case study is presented in which an AI-powered Student Virtual Assistant was developed at York University in Toronto, Canada. All steps of the product creation, including envisioning, designing, prototyping, and evaluating are described, as well as the following steps involving maintenance and expansion.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.965
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.160
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations5
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Review of Information EthicsSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207