Visiones de espacios de trabajo tridimensionales o virtuales, metaversos, y educación. Realidad virtual y aprendizaje
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The idea of this special issue was to give space to contributions that essentially included empirical research or development of technologies, such as inclusive virtual reality, and to analyze their influence on learning or its improvement. We were thinking of the metaverse, with the technology that it presents or with hypothetical new platforms that are emerging. The perspective was to improve and expand pedagogical possibilities in specific aspects, where it was more difficult to improve. This is the case with those offered by traditional symbolic systems, whose advantages are obvious and refined by tradition and culture: those related to learning and acquisition of reading and writing, learning and acquisition of abilities to produce computer codes (computational thinking) and, finally, those related to learning and acquisition of mathematical symbolic writing. We briefly analyzed the problems and vicissitudes to deal with the novelty of the approach and possible doubts about the validity of the call for papers. It can be said that, although the monograph has brought together ten works of sufficient quality, most of the objectives set forth have not been achieved. Of the papers published here, four are exclusively about the metaverse. A very interesting one gives us an idea, after some conditions that guarantee its reliability, about the state of what is being done with metaverse in classroom practice in the design and implementation phases. Finally, there has been an aspect in which the objective has not been achieved at all, and this could cause us to reflect on some proposals made in terms of metaverse speculation. There was no contribution among the accepted papers or the many rejected manuscripts on the metaverse as a new code capable of supporting the communication and representation of thought or similar similar to how key codes, the basis of communication and learning, do so: alphabetic writing, writing through numerical codes and program codes, computational thinking. Cuando se convocó, la idea de este número era dar espacio a contribuciones que esencialmente incluyesen alguna investigación empírica, o el desarrollo de tecnologías, como la realidad virtual inclusiva, analizando su influencia en el aprendizaje, o en su mejora. Pensábamos en metaverso, con la tecnología que se nos presenta o con las hipotéticas nuevas plataformas que fuesen surgiendo. La perspectiva era la de mejorar y ampliar posibilidades pedagógicas en aspectos concretos, donde era más difícil obtener mejora, como son las que ofrecen los sistemas simbólicos tradicionales. Cuyas ventajas son obvias y depuradas por la tradición y la cultura: las relacionadas con el aprendizaje y adquisición de la lectura y de la escritura, el aprendizaje y adquisición de habilidades para producir códigos informáticos (pensamiento computacional) y, por último, las relacionadas con el aprendizaje y la adquisición de la escritura simbólica matemática. Analizamos sucintamente los problemas y vicisitudes para superar la novedad del planteamiento y posibles dudas sobre la validez de la convocatoria. Se puede decir que, si bien el monográfico ha conseguido reunir diez trabajos de calidad suficiente, la mayor parte de los objetivos planteados no han sido conseguidos. De los trabajos publicados, cuatro son exclusivamente sobre metaverso. Uno muy interesante que nos da idea, tras unas condiciones que garantizan su fiabilidad, acerca del estado de lo que se hace con metaverso en la práctica de aula en las fases de diseño e implementación. Por último, ha habido un aspecto donde el objetivo no ha sido en absoluto conseguido, y eso podría hacernos reflexionar sobre algunas propuestas que en el plano de las especulaciones sobre metaverso se han hecho. No ha habido ninguna aportación, ni entre las contribuciones aceptadas ni entre las numerosas que se han rechazado, de metaverso como un nuevo código capar de soportar la comunicación y la representación del pensamiento y de las ideas similar a como lo hacen los códigos claves, base de la comunicación y del aprendizaje: La escritura alfabética, la escritura a través de códigos numéricos y la de códigos de programas, el pensamiento computacional.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it