Bibliographic record
Abstract
Getting a large audience to actively participate in a lecture is a challenge faced by many lecturers. The value of active participation is well supported in current research with significant contribution made by the introduction of electronic response systems (ERS). ERS allows each member of the audience to participate by using a hand-held device (like a TV remote control), responding to (usually) multiple-choice questions presented on a board. This article is introducing a new approach to the use of ERS, making the audience engage in a decision- making process based on multi-attribute utility theory (MAUT), a commonly used theory in decision making, aiming to: • Help conference participants, in a large group setting, prioritize suggestions and action items developed over the previous days of a conference, drawing on discussions held in concurrent, small group break out sessions. • Organize those suggestions/items into a prioritized list that reflects the discussions and honors individual participant voice. • Generate a list, based on the group organization process that will direct future innovation for conference participants and organizers. • Present the collective knowledge from the conference in a way that participants can see themselves as contributing partners in the conference outcome statements. This article, then, describes a case study of decision making in a large audience, keeping each participant involved in a meaningful process of an elaborated analysis of action items. The technology, the process, and the experiment are presented as a study of the feasibility of using such systems in large audiences. We introduce here the term large group decision support system (LGDSS) to describe the process of using technology to assist a large audience in making decisions.Request access from your librarian to read this chapter's full text.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.832 | 0.703 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".