MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Investigation of How Chinese University Students Use Social Software for Learning Purposes

2015· article· en· W912796749 on OpenAlexaff
Zuochen Zhang, Ying Xue

Bibliographic record

VenueProcedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicImpact of Technology on Adolescents
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Windsor
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMainland ChinaGlobeVariety (cybernetics)Social mediaChinaSocial softwareCurriculumSoftwareSpace (punctuation)SociologyPublic relationsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebPsychologyPedagogyGeographyPolitical scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Social software (also called “social networking sites” or “social media sites”) is used by people of all walks of life around the globe, and a variety of research studies have been conducted regarding its use for learning purposes, as the pedagogical value of the informal communication space has been recognized by researchers with different perspectives. Facebook and Twitter, which are very popular social software in many countries, are not available to general users in mainland China, where alternatives, e.g., QQ and WeChat are widely used. This paper reports findings of a study that investigated how students from three Chinese universities of different geographic locations (one from Northeast China, one from Northwest China, and another from Southwest China) use the social software for learning purposes. Data were collected from interviews with some of the users, and observation of how the spaces were used, in the past two years. Based on a review of relevant literature and the analysis of the research data, the authors’ reflections and recommendations are presented with the hope to offer educators of higher education some useful reference to consider when they design curriculum and courses that could provide students with an enriched learning experience.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations16
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProcedia - Social and Behavioral SciencesSame topicImpact of Technology on AdolescentsFrench-language works237,207