MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116930941 · doi:10.30557/qw000102

Knowledge Building in the Artificial Intelligence Age: Exploring the Role of Large Language Models as Students’ Consultant

2025· article· W7116930941 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueQwerty · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Key (lock)Applications of artificial intelligenceMarketing and artificial intelligenceConstructed languageKnowledge-based systems

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowledge Building has long theorized the need of rethinking K-12 and higher education systems by orienting their activity toward the co-construction of knowledge, to solve community’s authentic problems. This shift in perspective is today enriched by a new question: how can Artificial Intelligence (AI), and particularly Large Language Models (LLMs), be leveraged to support these systems in functioning as genuine knowledge-building communities? This contribution centers on this question, first revisiting the key elements of the Knowledge Building theory, exploring the opportunities offered by AI tools based on LLMs, identifying the role of LLM to support knowledge-building activities, and examining future directions of inquiry.

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)0.014
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.913

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0140.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.349 · 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