MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386846600 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2023.071201

Analysis of Several Problems of Modern Distance Education in Colleges and Universities—Take Chongqing as an Example

2023· article· en· W4386846600 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Wan Yanshan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDistance educationPaceShadow (psychology)Quality (philosophy)Mathematics educationProcess (computing)Higher educationSociologyMedical educationPsychologyComputer scienceEconomic growthMedicineGeographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the development of science and technology, distance education has gradually attracted people's attention. At present, a large number of use scenarios of distance education have appeared in the society, and many colleges and universities also regard distance education as a means of universal education. Distance education can accelerate the pace of education and facilitate the teaching activities in different people. However, there are also many problems in the process of use, especially the concern about the quality of teaching has become an indelible shadow in the hearts of many people's minds. Therefore, this paper will analyze the problems existing in the objective and subjective distance education for the current scenarios used in distance education, and give reasonable suggestions. In previous studies, many people mainly attributed the teaching quality of distance education to the subjective reasons, rather than objectively discussing the objective factors of distance education on the teaching quality of enterprises. Therefore, this paper will focus on the evaluation of teaching quality from the objective and subjective perspectives.

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.145
Threshold uncertainty score0.459

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.339 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207