MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409794831 · doi:10.61091/jcmcc127b-531

Construction of English Teaching Index Evaluation System Based on Artificial Intelligence and Multimedia Technology

2025· article· en· W4409794831 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Combinatorial Mathematics and Combinatorial Computing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndex (typography)MultimediaComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AI (Artificial Intelligence) technology and multimedia technology are changing with each passing day, and have gradually involved in various fields.At the same time, the use of these technologies in the field of education has also effectively promoted the assessment of English classroom teaching.Since good classroom teaching is inseparable from evaluation, then scientific and reasonable teaching assessment of English classroom teaching can be guaranteed.At present, there is a lack of English teaching index assessment system for AI and multimedia technology.Therefore, this paper conduced in-depth research on improving the assessment system of English classroom teaching, and expounded on AI and multimedia technology.This paper built an assessment system for English classroom teaching based on AI and multimedia technology, and innovated and improves the assessment system.The experiment showed that 85% of the teachers were satisfied with the assessment system of English teaching indicators based on AI and multimedia technology, and 70% of the teachers were satisfied with the assessment system of traditional English teaching indicators.The new system can help to promote a more objective and scientific assessment of English classroom teaching.

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)0.003
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 score0.406
Threshold uncertainty score0.665

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207