MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388196321 · doi:10.22318/cscl2023.564091

Role of Epistemic Artifacts for Engaging in Collaborative Learning

2023· article· en· W4388196321 on OpenAlexaff
Elizabeth S. Charles, Michael Dugdale, Kevin Lenton, Chao Zhang, Rhys Adams, Chris Whittaker, Nathaniel Lasry

Bibliographic record

VenueComputer-supported collaborative learning/˜The œComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning Conference · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJohn Abbott CollegeVanier College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordanceComputer scienceCollaborative learningGroup (periodic table)Knowledge managementHuman–computer interactionMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Active learning (AL) instructional pedagogies involve collaborative activities that engage students in creating artifacts.Active Learning Classrooms (ALCs) are physical spaces designed to facilitate AL pedagogies.This study examined the artifacts produced within ALCs, which included physical affordances for collaboration and digital/analog technologies for sharing.By focusing on artifacts, the study analyzed the different practices that emerged based on the type of ALCs.Results showed that group-generated artifacts mediated within-group collaboration, regardless of ALC type.In high-tech ALCs that incorporate digital technologies, in addition, group artifacts mediated between-group interactions and generated new classroom practices including innovative AL pedagogical patterns and forms of communal knowledge building practices.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.014
Scholarly communication0.0220.017
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0040.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.002

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designNot applicable
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 venueComputer-supported collaborative learning/˜The œComputer-Supported Collaborative Learning ConferenceSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207