Bibliographic record
Abstract
The word humor can be defined as something which is perceived to be funny, comical, or amusing. However, in the case of humor perception plays a key role. This is mainly because what is regarded as humorous by one person may not be funny to another person. Hence, humor like beauty lies in the eyes (ears) of the beholder. The potential of humor as a pedagogical tool is not a new concept in education. Teachers around the world have a mixed attitude towards the use of humor in the classroom as a pedagogical tool. Thus, in this study we sought to investigate the perceptions of students towards the use of humor as a teaching tool at higher education institutions in Bangladesh. For this purpose, we have performed both quantitative and qualitative analysis. In the quantitative part of the study, we collected data from 300 students and performed a binary logistic regression. On the other hand, for the qualitative analysis we have undertaken interviews of 30 selected students at a higher academic institution in Bangladesh. Overall, the results of this study indicate that most of the students considered humor as a positive and beneficial teaching tool in the classroom.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".