MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7099214170

Running head: ReView ReView: A Digital Video Player to Support Music Practice and Learning

2008· article· en· W7099214170 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicVisual and Cognitive Learning Processes
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDigital videoVideo productionTest (biology)Digital mediaOnline videoThe arts
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thanks to the emergence of digital video, producing and distributing video is now possible in ways that were previously limited to video production companies. Yet the functions of current digital media players differ little from the VCR’s play, rewind, fast-forward, and pause functions, which may not support learning tasks appropriately. Therefore, we designed an enhanced digital media player, ReView, to better support video-based learning. To test ReView’s usefulness, advanced music students in the Young Artists Programme of the National Arts Centre of Canada were given the opportunity to use the media player to review a video recorded lesson. In this paper, we present the students ’ ratings of the usefulness of ReView’s features, and the frequency with which the features were used. We discuss these findings with respect to technological support for browsing video content. Additionally, we present findings related to the content of the video that the students chose to watch. Specifically, we found that students prefer to watch themselves play rather than review instructions received from a coach.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.035
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.035
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0600.018

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 head0.077
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicVisual and Cognitive Learning ProcessesFrench-language works237,207