MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1482910638

Concept Mapping: A Unique Means for Negotiating Meaning in Professional Studies

2005· article· en· W1482910638 on OpenAlex

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

VenueSwinburne Research Bank (Swinburne University of Technology) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Tools and Methods
Canadian institutionsAcadia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConcept mapConstructivist teaching methodsMeaning (existential)Computer scienceRealmCurriculumNegotiationSchema (genetic algorithms)Mathematics educationTeaching methodPedagogyEpistemologySociologyPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Concept mapping (Novak & Gowin, 1984) has been used extensively as a graphic organiser in classroom teaching. This article addresses two particular approaches to using concept mapping that go beyond classroom planning into the realm of 'idea-exchange' with concept mapping as mediator. The notion of 'negotiative concept mapping' is examined in two professional contexts namely teacher education and medical school software development. The potential for negotiating ideas and meaning using concept mapping in these settings is discussed based on empirical materials including: qualitative observations by the authors, student surveys, and student interview data.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.724
Threshold uncertainty score0.879

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.284 · 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