MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393322823 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2024.080214

Micro Course Design and Online Education Strategies of Information Fusion Technology in Smart Education Environment

2024· article· en· W4393322823 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Zheng Gao, Li Wan

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Jiangxi Province
KeywordsCourse (navigation)Online courseEngineeringComputer scienceMultimediaMathematics educationPsychologyAerospace engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Online classrooms require massive intelligent learning resources and big data support, and micro course resources in universities are also one of the digital resources. As one of the digital resources in universities, the educational resources in online classrooms have the characteristics of numerous subjects, single forms, large quantities, and uneven quality, making it difficult to fully support the needs of intelligent learning. Its characteristics include openness, sharing, intelligence, interactivity, collaboration, and ubiquitous availability, which require rapid and in-depth development and improvement to become intelligent resources. Based on the "Internet plus" model, this paper discusses the core elements of intelligent teaching under the "Internet plus" model, and studies and designs them. This realizes the overall framework of the online teaching "smart classroom" support platform, and divides the functions of each subsystem. This article provides specific solutions from the technical implementation level. This article has certain reference significance for the development and improvement of intelligent teaching. The data analysis results of the questionnaire survey indicate that the average scores of student performance, student participation, student satisfaction, knowledge mastery, learning enthusiasm, and teaching efficiency in the experimental group are 72.17, 73.4, 73.03, 79.23, 78.11, and 78.03, which are 11.99, 7.86, 10.06, 9.57, 17.25, and 8.73 higher than those in the control group.

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 score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.753

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.343 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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