MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399782238 · doi:10.1080/10447318.2024.2364467

An Investigation of a Customizable Entertaining Animated E-Book: A Gender Difference Perspective

2024· article· en· W4399782238 on OpenAlexaff
Sherry Y. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicLibrary Collection Development and Digital Resources
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Visual artsArtMultimediaComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Game-based learning, electronic books (e-books), and animations offer different advantages and serve distinct purposes. Consequently, this study aimed to propose an entertaining animated e-book by seamlessly integrating these three information technologies. Additionally, customization was incorporated into the entertaining animated e-book to accommodate learners’ diverse preferences. In other words, a Customizable Entertaining Animated E-book (CEAE) was implemented in this study, which also aimed to investigate the influences of gender differences on their reactions to the CEAE. Results indicated that the CEAE could reduce gender differences, in terms of test performance and task performance. However, differences between males and females still existed in learning behavior and gaming behavior. More specifically, males and females preferred to use different scaffolding hints and choose different gaming modes. Based on these findings, we introduced a framework, which could work as a valuable reference for instructors to implement e-books, GBL, and animations in educational settings. This framework could also provide guidelines for designers to personalize entertaining animated e-books.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Human-Computer InteractionSame topicLibrary Collection Development and Digital ResourcesFrench-language works237,207