MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409837045 · doi:10.22214/ijraset.2025.68867

AI Workroom: An Intelligent Platform for AI-Enhanced Meeting Experiences

2025· article· en· W4409837045 on OpenAlexaff
Kaushal Shingan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering Technology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBusiness, Management and Accounting
TopicBig Data and Business Intelligence
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
FundersDepartment of Artificial Intelligence, Korea University
KeywordsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper introduces the creation of "AI-Workroom," a smart virtual conference app developed on TypeScript and driven by Zego Cloud APIs. The main aim of this project is to support remote collaboration, especially in working and learning environments. AI-Workroom supports basic virtual conferencing features like meeting setup and entry, screen sharing, video and audio communication, and real-time texting . Some of the key highlights in the new system is integrating an AI workspace, completing a meeting and people with AI capability to create images and a whiteboard to utilize visual explanations to present something. The AI image creation module allows users to create images for specified subjects and topics in real-time that drastically lowers the necessity of finding images outside, this module was created on the foundation of the Hugging Face API. The interactive whiteboard contains simple drawing instruments such as a pencil, eraser, and text box which allows teachers and presenters to represent ideas and thoughts in an instant. Robust user authentication and data management is done via Firebase, with Google Authentication providing secure access. AI-Workroom seeks to revolutionize the model of engagement between teachers and students in virtual space integrated with visual aids

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.450
Threshold uncertainty score0.842

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 venueInternational Journal for Research in Applied Science and Engineering TechnologySame topicBig Data and Business IntelligenceFrench-language works237,207