MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W132216757 · doi:10.5951/mtms.6.6.0343

Algebraic Thinking through Origami

2001· article· en· W132216757 on OpenAlex
William Higginson, Lynda Colgan

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

VenueMathematics Teaching in the Middle School · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationTask (project management)CurriculumBig IdeaComputer scienceMathematics curriculumReform mathematicsTeaching methodMathematicsConnected MathematicsPedagogySociologyTechnology integrationEngineeringSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since the publication of the original Curriculum and Evaluation Standards for School Mathematics (NCTM 1989), we have come to embrace the importance of the “big ideas” of mathematics—the complex web of ideas that goes beyond content and includes reasoning, problem solving, and communication using multi-ple representations. Big ideas in classrooms give students opportunities to see mathematics as an integrated whole and to make thoughtful connections among related concepts and applications to other domains. This article illustrates how mathematical insights can arise naturally from a rich learning task when the teacher facilitates a stimulating and responsive dialogue.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.699
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.358
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