MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7064445884

Audio Versus Guided Tours at a National Historic Site: What’s the Difference?

2016· article· en· W7064445884 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst) · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPhysics and Astronomy
TopicRadiation Detection and Scintillator Technologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTourismCognitionCognitive loadCognitive mapAudio visual
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study was to examine differences in audio and guided tour participants’ tour experience at a Canadian National Historic Site. Specifically this paper discusses how the type of tour (audio or guided) in which visitors participate during their visit impacts visitors cognitive load. Cognitive load refers to the burden placed on working memory when extraneous material must be processed. This paper posits that when visitors use a personal media device to take a tour their working memory is overburden thereby reducing their overall learning during their tour. Findings reveal that audio tour participants do experience greater cognitive load than guided tour participants and that this does impact their learning experience. The implications of these findings for site managers are discussed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.307
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.200 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@UMassAmherst (University of Massachusetts Amherst)Same topicRadiation Detection and Scintillator TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207