MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406203391 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc123-28

Research and Discussion on the Construction of Curriculum Resource System Based on the Background of Educational Informatization

2024· article· en· W4406203391 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaochen Cheng

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSouthwest Jiaotong University
KeywordsCurriculumInformatizationPromotion (chess)Context (archaeology)Quality (philosophy)Engineering ethicsHumanismSociologyMathematics educationKnowledge managementPolitical sciencePublic relationsComputer sciencePedagogyEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the modern era, the cultivation of foreign talents extends beyond the traditional enhancement of humanistic knowledge, with literature playing a pivotal role. Addressing the challenges posed by the “golden curriculum,” this study uses the “Selected British and American Stories” program as an example to explore a blended learning and sorting approach. Aligned with the Ministry of Education’s emphasis on “golden subjects,” the research formulates an implementation strategy for curriculum development. In the context of the Ministry’s promotion of the mixed funding program in 2019, the study highlights the necessity of guiding students to utilize the Internet for data-driven blended learning. By emphasizing active engagement, intrinsic motivation, and flexible learning approaches, the proposed strategy aims to enhance teaching quality and align with contemporary educational reform priorities. Furthermore, the paper underscores the significance of equitable teaching evaluation as a feedback mechanism, actively contributing to the overall improvement of teaching quality.

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)0.003
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score0.269

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207