MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404519045 · doi:10.56059/jl4d.v11i3.1657

Taming the Monster: How can Open Education Promote the Effective and Safe use of Generative AI in Education?

2024· article· en· W4404519045 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

VenueJournal of Learning for Development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicOnline Learning and Analytics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMonsterGenerative grammarPsychologySociologyComputer scienceArtArtificial intelligenceLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The development, use, and timely promotion of Open Education (OE) has been effective in addressing myriad educational concerns, including inclusivity, accessibility and learning achievement, among many others. However, limited information exists in the literature concerning how OE could enhance Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI), which is receiving extensive interest and criticism at this time. To address this research gap, this study relies on the Open Educational Practices (OEP) framework of Huang et al. (2020) to provide various OEP scenarios that could help to promote and facilitate the effective and safe adoption of GenAI in education. The findings of this study could provide guidelines on how relying on OEP when adopting GenAI could help in ensuring quality education which is the sustainable development goal (SDG 4) of the United Nations (UN).

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)0.001
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.966
Threshold uncertainty score0.565

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.298 · 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