MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409603236 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-115

Building a Co-construction and Sharing Model of Digital Ideological and Political Resources for Embedded Courses Based on Artificial Intelligence Algorithms

2025· article· en· W4409603236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIdeological and Political Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEducation Department of Shaanxi Province
KeywordsIdeologyComputer sciencePoliticsArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

At present, there are differences in the building of information in various career institutions.The degree of implementation of management, teaching and services is uneven, and educational resources are limited and unevenly distributed.The construction of educational resources includes the overall layout, structure and quantity of resources, information mode, service impact, etc, all of which require systematic planning.Under the above background, this paper conducted research on the topic of building a model of co-construction and sharing of digital ideological and political resources for embedded courses based on artificial intelligence algorithms, and considered the insufficiency of the existing digital ideological and political resources in the allocation efficiency and insufficient system sharing, as well as creatively used artificial intelligence algorithms to improve the previous system.In the algorithm, the texture mapping of the system was carried out, and the duty cycle of each columnar area was specified.In the experiment, the number of resources in the digital resource platform was investigated, and the input of different types of colleges and universities in digital ideological and political resources was collected.The explanation of experimental data: 83% of 985/211 colleges and universities used the database designed in this paper, and 17% of them actively built the database; 57% of the general undergraduate schools used the database designed in this paper, and 20% were under construction, as well as 13% were still preparing.This showed that in general undergraduate schools, a small proportion of the digital ideological and political resource sharing model was used, and the 985/211 colleges and universities had relatively good investment in the construction of digital ideological and political resources.

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)0.003
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 score0.091
Threshold uncertainty score0.507

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.313 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial ComputingSame topicIdeological and Political EducationFrench-language works237,207