MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310436305 · doi:10.21432/cjlt28287

Artificial Intelligence in the Fourth Industrial Revolution to Educate for Sustainable Development

2022· article· en· W4310436305 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

VenueCanadian Journal of Learning and Technology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicSmart Cities and Technologies
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSustainable developmentEducation for sustainable developmentLifelong learningEngineering ethicsIndustrial RevolutionQuality (philosophy)Thematic analysisPolitical scienceEngineeringKnowledge managementSociologyEngineering managementComputer sciencePedagogyQualitative researchSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There has been increasing interest in the use of Fourth Industrial Revolution technologies such as artificial intelligence to help achieve the Sustainable Development Goals. Recently, multilateral organizations have sponsored initiatives to make countries aware of the benefits of using artificial intelligence for sustainable developm­ent and to educate citizens to improve quality of life. This paper explores aspects of employing artificial intelligence for sustainable development, with a focus on lifelong learning, and inclusive and equitable quality education. Data are drawn from a thematic review of 32 academic peer-reviewed journal articles and interviews with six international experts. Findings include examples of benefits and challenges of artificial intelligence to address sustainable development and education.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.817
Threshold uncertainty score0.244

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.201 · 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