MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7146862610

実践報告 相互動画撮影による「弾き歌いテスト」の試み

2024· article· ja· W7146862610 on OpenAlexaff
美乃里 野口, Minori Noguchi

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Systems and Policies
Canadian institutionsEducation and Early Childhood Development
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTest (biology)Objective testWork (physics)Video recordingGroup tests
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this study is to compare and examine two methods of testing "singing with simple accompaniment," and to study the advantages, disadvantages, and points for improvement of the new method. One is the conventional method, in which teachers check each student's performance, and the other is a method in which students evaluate video recordings made in group work and submitted by the students. The study was based on the results of a test administered to 63 students taking "Early Childhood and Musical Expression" and a questionnaire administered after the test.

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)0.013
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.269 · 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
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicEducational Systems and PoliciesFrench-language works237,207