MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4391481250 · doi:10.1111/jlse.12146

Artificial Intelligence: The Future of Pedagogy

2024· article· en· W4391481250 on OpenAlexaff
Brandon Mattalo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Legal Studies Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLegal Education and Practice Innovations
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenerative grammarNarrativeFocus (optics)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceKnowledge managementPedagogySociologyPsychologyArtificial intelligenceEngineeringLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While it is important to research the negative impact of generative artificial intelligence on academic integrity, academics should focus most of their efforts on the opportunities these technologies present for improving pedagogical practices. In this note, I attempt to flip the narrative from one of fear to one of opportunity. I suggest that academics should research the use of generative AI to improve teaching effectiveness and efficiency. I offer various practical suggestions on how these tools can be used to advance pedagogical practices, with specific business law examples.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.917
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.091
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.417 · 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 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Legal Studies EducationSame topicLegal Education and Practice InnovationsFrench-language works237,207