Fifth Annual Workshop on A/B Testing and Platform-Enabled Learning Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Learning engineering adds tools and processes to learning platforms to support improvement research. One kind of tool is A/B testing-common in large software companies and also represented academically at conferences like the Annual Conference on Digital Experimentation (CODE), and the International Consortium for Innovation and Collaboration in Learning Engineering (IEEE ICICLE). Recently, several A/B testing systems have arisen that focus on conducting research in educational environments, including UpGrade, Terracotta, and E-TRIALS. A/B testing can help improve educational platforms, yet there are challenging issues unique to conducting such work in these contexts. In response, a number of digital learning platforms have opened their systems to learning-improvement research by instructors and/or third-party researchers, with specific supports necessary for education-specific research designs. This workshop will explore challenges of A/B testing in educational contexts, how learning platforms are accelerating education research, and how empirical approaches can be used to drive powerful gains in student learning. It will also discuss opportunities for funding to conduct platform-enabled learning research.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.044 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.038 | 0.011 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".