MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412184951 · doi:10.58459/rptel.2009.4195-219

CONVERGENCE OF DATA SOURCES IN THE ANALYSIS OF COMPLEX LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS

2009· article· en· W4412184951 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch and Practice in Technology Enhanced Learning · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicLearning Styles and Cognitive Differences
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsConvergence (economics)Computer scienceData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning in technology mediated learning environments is a complex process that varies across individual and group contexts. Complex learning environments that are medi- ated by technology require distinct concurrent methodologies that reveal when and where learning may occur. This paper describes the analysis of two technology-mediated problem-solving environments, one that uses concurrent methods to identify expertise, and the other that examines the influence of technology in a collaborative learning situ- ation. The first example examines individual problem solving in the context of a stand- alone environment, BioWorld, whereas the second example examines the joint production of medical decisions with traditional and interactive whiteboard technology in a medical classroom. These examples demonstrate how concurrent methods add to our understand- ing of individual learning as well as the co-construction of knowledge in the context of clinical reasoning using technology.

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.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.631
Threshold uncertainty score0.773

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.158
GPT teacher head0.485
Teacher spread0.327 · 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