MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7130692724 · doi:10.1109/swc65939.2025.00078

Governance supports for smart education with generative AI

2025· article· W7130692724 on OpenAlexaff
Stella George

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldComputer Science
TopicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive Learning
Canadian institutionsAthabasca University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCorporate governanceGenerative grammarPower (physics)Position paperPosition (finance)Generative model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Taking the position that AI it is already in education [1] (in contrast to many faculty still asking should AI be in education) it is worthwhile reminding ourselves who is driving this innovation. Unlike education technology it is not educators driving AI evolution in smart education. Students are directly driving use of AI in education, they are being indirectly supported by generative AI model developers and AI vendors. With this shift in the power dynamic, educators must now provide guidance that empowers students to use AI tools in an ethical and responsible way that maximises, rather than minimises their learning experience. What educational institutions can provide is supportive governance that nurtures direction identified by educators.

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 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 score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.261 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicIntelligent Tutoring Systems and Adaptive LearningFrench-language works237,207