MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4316036779 · doi:10.1504/ijmlo.2023.10053364

Enabling in-car location-based experiential learning with Presentria GO

2023· article· en· W4316036779 on OpenAlexaff
Margaret S. Osborne, Ken Kwong Kay Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Mobile Learning and Organisation · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicRobotic Path Planning Algorithms
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningM-learningComputer sciencePsychologyMultimediaHuman–computer interactionArtificial intelligenceMathematics educationWorld Wide WebMobile device

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The COVID-19 pandemic has changed how millions around the globe are educated. The 2nd or 3rd waves of the disease have made learning in classrooms unsafe once again. Many schools are forced to send their students home to take online classes under their government's lock-down protocols. For many young learners, engaging with school is a significant part of their well-being, which has been compromised by the extended period of remote learning and low social interaction levels during the pandemic. New and innovative solutions to address learners' needs have been called during this pandemic. The Presentria GO system is an innovative solution that enables students from K-12 to higher education to learn experientially from their cars during a city excursion. Through a survey with 74 educators and a series of expert interviews and focus group discussions, insights into the feasibility of this active learning mode are explored. This paper proposes the concept of 'in-car location-based experiential learning' as one of the methods to engage students during the pandemic and beyond.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.007
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Mobile Learning and OrganisationSame topicRobotic Path Planning AlgorithmsFrench-language works237,207