MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3178210875 · doi:10.24908/pceea.vi0.14866

INTERPRETING STUDENT RESPONSES USING SENTIMENT ANALYSIS AND TEXT-ANALYTICS

2021· article· en· W3178210875 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSentiment analysisLearning analyticsExpectancy theoryVocabularyComputer scienceData scienceValue (mathematics)Mathematics educationOnline learningAnalyticsPsychologyArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide WebLinguisticsMachine learningSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper discusses exploratory research which computationally examines over one and a half million words presented by first-year students as part of weekly online assignments over the Fall 2020 academic term. This work aims to explore whether computational analyses of first-year engineering student vocabulary can be employed to understand the levels of student motivation when learning engineering in an online environment. The investigation uses NVivo 12 Plus (NVivo), a data analysis software, to track the overall sentiment of weekly student discussion board responses and apply text queries to determine the number of responses that include words related to the expectancy-value theory. Applying this theory reveals trends in overall student motivation, with weeks four to six and eight to ten having an overall positive sentiment. This positive sentiment reveals higher levels of student motivation during those weeks.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.232 · 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