MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242265565 · doi:10.3115/1599503.1599558

Automating the analysis of collaborative discourse

2009· article· en· W4242265565 on OpenAlexaff
Nobuko Fujita, Christopher Teplovs

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceComplement (music)VisualizationQualitative analysisLatent semantic analysisData visualizationSemantic analysis (machine learning)Quantitative analysis (chemistry)Data scienceScale (ratio)Discourse analysisInformation retrievalNatural language processingQualitative researchArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This poster explores CSCL practices relating to the use of a tool that employs information visualization techniques and large-scale text processing and analysis to complement qualitative analysis of collaborative discourse. Results from latent semantic analysis and qualitative analysis of online discussion transcripts are compared. Findings suggest that such tools that automate analyses of large text-based data sets can offer CSCL researchers a quantitative and unbiased way of identifying a subset of data to study in depth.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.949
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.454
Teacher spread0.424 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207