MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404253486 · doi:10.1177/23476311241290894

Integrating Artificial Intelligence with NHEQF Descriptors for Pedagogical Excellence

2024· article· en· W4404253486 on OpenAlexaff
Suresh Namboothiri, Thomas K. Varghese, Mendus Jacob, Joby Cyriac

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education for the Future · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsNorthern Alberta Institute of Technology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExcellenceComputer scienceArtificial intelligencePsychologyMathematics educationPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research investigates the critical need to integrate affective and psychomotor domains alongside cognitive development in educational systems to achieve the comprehensive ‘Exit Outcomes’ of Outcome-Based Education (OBE) and align with the National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) descriptors. Traditional educational approaches are inadequate for these goals, prompting the introduction of the AI-Charya framework—a novel, artificial intelligence (AI)-driven pedagogical model. Utilizing a qualitative approach, this study explores the limitations of existing models and the transformative potential of generative AI. The AI-Charya framework provides adaptive, multimodal educational strategies that personalize learning and significantly enhance critical and creative thinking skills. Findings indicate that students engaged with AI-Charya show marked improvements in these areas, positioning them for success in an increasingly automated global workforce. However, the study’s generalizability is limited by its specific educational contexts, and further research is needed to assess long-term outcomes. Despite these limitations, the AI-Charya framework offers a pioneering blueprint for aligning educational practices with OBE and NHEQF standards, equipping students with the holistic competencies required for dynamic, future-oriented careers. This research has significant implications for policymakers, educators and curriculum developers aiming to enhance educational excellence through innovative methodologies.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.009
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.292 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education for the FutureSame topicOnline Learning and AnalyticsFrench-language works237,207