MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404767726 · doi:10.23977/jaip.2024.070402

Exploration of the Integration Development of Innovation and Entrepreneurship Education in Colleges and Universities Based on AI Technology

2024· article· en· W4404767726 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Artificial Intelligence Practice · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEntrepreneurshipEntrepreneurship educationEngineering managementEngineeringEngineering ethicsPolitical scienceKnowledge managementMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the rapid advancement of artificial intelligence technology, its applications within the educational sector have gradually become more widespread. As a critical component in the cultivation of future innovative talents, higher education's entrepreneurship and innovation education faces multiple challenges, such as outdated teaching models, a singular educational service system, and low resource utilization efficiency. This paper explores how AI technology can empower higher education's entrepreneurship and innovation education, driving transformative changes in teaching models through personalized learning path planning, intelligent teaching evaluations, and virtual reality simulations. Additionally, services such as intelligent mentor consultations, automated assessments of entrepreneurial projects, and precise information dissemination have effectively enhanced the educational service system for innovation and entrepreneurship. Moreover, the application of AI technology has facilitated the deep integration of universities with enterprises, industries, and practical applications, creating platforms for resource sharing and cultural exchange, and fostering a favorable ecosystem for innovation and entrepreneurship. However, the integration of AI technology in education also brings challenges such as ethical risks, data security issues, faculty development, and cost concerns, which necessitate comprehensive countermeasures. Through in-depth analysis, this paper provides theoretical support and practical guidance for the integrated development of higher education's entrepreneurship and innovation education.

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 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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.247

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.378
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Artificial Intelligence PracticeSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207