MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400461331 · doi:10.1007/s10270-024-01192-y

Requirements for modelling tools for teaching

2024· article· en· W4400461331 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSoftware & Systems Modeling · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicModel-Driven Software Engineering Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaUniversité de MontréalToronto Metropolitan UniversityMcGill University
FundersAgencia Estatal de InvestigaciónEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilJunta de Andalucía
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware engineeringEngineering managementProgramming languageSystems engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modelling is an important activity in software development and it is essential that students learn the relevant skills. Modelling relies on dedicated tools and these can be complex to install, configure, and use—distracting students from learning key modelling concepts and creating accidental complexity for teachers. To address these challenges, we believe that modelling tools specifically aimed at use in teaching are required. Based on discussions at a working session organised at MODELS 2023 and the results from an internationally shared questionnaire, we report on requirements for such modelling tools for teaching. We also present examples of existing modelling tools for teaching and how they address some of the requirements identified.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.288
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.228 · 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