MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389096684 · doi:10.14742/apubs.2023.465

The “IKEA Model” for pragmatic development of a custom learning analytics dashboard

2023· article· en· W4389096684 on OpenAlexaff
Leah P. Macfadyen, Alison Myers

Bibliographic record

VenueASCILITE Publications · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDashboardLearning analyticsAnalyticsVendorComputer scienceData scienceSimple (philosophy)LiteracyKnowledge managementWorld Wide WebPedagogyPsychologyBusiness

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many educators and learning analytics practitioners find themselves in ‘learning analytics limbo’, with access only to simplistic one-size-fits-all vendor-driven LA dashboards, as they wait for development of possible future LA solutions that would allow customizations that genuinely cater to differences in learning design and educator skills. We present here a simple and pragmatically oriented project that allows individual educators to build and customize an LA solution ‘at home’ with relatively simple tools. This open-source project takes advantage of data available to an educator via the LMS, and allows them to develop and customize an educator-facing dashboard that meets their teaching and learning design needs. This small-scale solution allows local educators and practitioners to continue to build their data literacy and LA-informed teaching skills, and to contribute to ongoing institutional learning through sharing their experience with institutional LA teams.

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)0.017
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.034
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.087

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0170.034
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.012
Open science0.0040.010
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0170.013

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueASCILITE PublicationsSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207