MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Usage of e-portfolio as an assessment tool in physics learning

2022· article· en· W4210263073 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Physics Conference Series · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Transportation of Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPortfolioPsychomotor learningProcess (computing)Data collectionComputer scienceWork (physics)CognitionPsychologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract An e-portfolio is a digital data collection of trainees that can advance learning by providing a way to organize, archive, and display individual or group work. The purpose of writing this article is to explain the use of e-portfolios as an assessment tool in training activities. E-portfolio as an assessment tool is more effective than standardized assessment tests which are many and complex because they facilitate the learning process and assessment. The method used is a literature study. As a result, the e-portfolio assessment using the LMS device was used as a learning medium, especially to store all of the participants’ learning activities during the training. E-portfolio assessment can support the learning process well, because it can assess the data collection of the work of trainees during the training process, both cognitive, affective and psychomotor assessments.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.135
Threshold uncertainty score0.481

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.421
Teacher spread0.358 · 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