MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362660577 · doi:10.47747/ijets.v3i2.1028

Impact of Artificial Intelligence On Higher Learning Institutions

2023· article· en· W4362660577 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Education Teaching and Social Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsCybernet Systems Corporation (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHigher educationApplications of artificial intelligenceEngineering ethicsArtificial intelligenceState (computer science)Political scienceKnowledge managementComputer scienceSociologyEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Artificial intelligence applications in education have attracted the attention of multiple parties, including scholars, educators, governments, and researchers. The article aims to conduct a comprehensive and inclusive review of the proliferation and impact of Artificial intelligence on Higher Learning. Chronologically, the focus has been artificial intelligence applications in higher learning since the early 1950s. There needs to be more literature regarding the adoption of AI in higher education, resulting in a substantial limitation of this article. This article also discusses the role of cyber security in adopting AI in higher education. The authors have also discussed various applications of AI in higher education and the challenges. This article presents some recommendations. More research is needed as the recommendations are based on a limited number of scholarly articles. A Georgia State University case study conducted in 2015 substantiates AI adoption's benefits in higher 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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.393
Threshold uncertainty score0.289

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.092
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.368 · 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