„QuILT-2” változatai közötti eltérés
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
(→About the log-based evaluation) |
||
| 47. sor: | 47. sor: | ||
'''T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them! | '''T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them! | ||
| − | ''' | + | ''' |
S(4): And may I have a further question, Sir? | S(4): And may I have a further question, Sir? | ||
| 56. sor: | 56. sor: | ||
S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision? | S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision? | ||
| − | '''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question | + | '''T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is half the battle! :-)''' BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes in a given context. |
| + | |||
Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations! | Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations! | ||
A lap 2018. december 11., 16:07-kori változata
QuILT-sitemap: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-content
2. Invitation: https://miau.my-x.hu/mediawiki/index.php/QuILT-Invitations#2._performance
Raw materials
- Teamwork-potential (analogies for PLA-evaluations):
- Stress detection (further analogies for PLA-evaluations):
About the log-based evaluation
Script for all roles with highlighted comments from the authors. Legend: T = Teacher, S[i] = one of the Students, R = Robot-RuDu = Are you? Do you!) Elements of screen play: either nothing or masks if a one-man-show should be performed...
T: Hi!
S(1, ..., n): Hello!
T:Thank you for your coming! In medias res: We should create two Doodle-votings. The first one will be made by the staff - here and now. The second one is your turn. The first question is: Who had a mathematical correct decision in the Monty-Hall-Test? The second (your) question will be: Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation? In order to create a Doodle-voting-scenario, it is necessary to have a question. This/these is/are already available. It is also necessary to have options in case of each question. In the first case, the options could be: e.g. correct interpretation/decision, incorrect interpretation/decision. S(7): Sorry, sorry - I think, these two options are not precise enough because the person who did not decide about the Monty-Hall-Question, well, s/he can not find an appropriate choice in the planned Doodle-system.
T: Excellent! I can just highlight that a question should always have so many options that each potential situation should have an appropriate one. And if we are here - there is two further expectations according to the options: In fact, all options should be a kind of entire original option. It means: no overlapping in the meanings with other ones. And the last expectation is: the set of the options should cover the whole potential of the options. In our case - here and now: the correctness of a declared option can just have two status: yes or no, but the non-declared cases will still not be covered, therefore it is necessary to have a third option like "no-interpretation/decision".
S(7): All right, Sir!
T: Before we try to use the Doodle-System, the options for your question, for the second question should also be completed. Who could formulate the first option? Remember, please: the second question was: " Which kind of interpretations can be identified behind a wrong choice/decision/interpretation? " S(4): I think, in this case, there is a lot of problems, is not there?
S(7): Yes, I agree with this suspicion. Interpretations compared to each other either will not be original enough or there will have overlapping effects between interpretations.
T: You are right. Principles are mostly available just to approximate them!
S(4): And may I have a further question, Sir?
T: Of course! We are here and together (in the real and/or in an virtual space) in order to have questions and find answers...
S(4): Why did you use parallel words before like choice-interpretation-decision?
T: You have a good instinct to ask! A good question ensures the half way to the expected results. With other words: the right question is half the battle! :-) BTW: I have a book for you - just here and now, but - I think - it will be interesting enough for everybody loving languages. The book has a simple title: Dictionary of PROVERBS (Penguin: https://www.bookdepository.com/Penguin-Dictionary-Proverbs-Rosalind-Fergusson/9780833505972) But we should go back to the question about the synonyms. Words can have a few relations to each other: like "is-a", "kind-of" (e.g. Audi is a car, red is a kind of color), has-a/part-of (e.g. the car has a brake - the brake is a part of the car), etc. (https://protege.stanford.edu/publications/ontology_development/ontology101-noy-mcguinness.html). Words can also have hierarchical connections: bugs vs. insects (https://terminixno.com/if-all-bugs-are-insects-are-all-insects-bugs/), where the well-known question is: If all bugs are insects, are all insects bugs? The answer is: Nope. All bugs are insects, but not all insects are bugs. An association is a specific connection between words: Dan Brown --> Da Vinci Code --> Mona Lisa, etc. After all these puzzle pieces: it is always relevant to declare, what kind of expression should be seen as the same or what kind of expressions are just stylistic substitutes in a given context.
Everybody may offer new description layers and/or fine tune the above mentioned initial interpretations!
