MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W148501131 · doi:10.5408/1089-9995-51.3.290

Project Atlantis - An Exercise in the Application of Earth Science to a Critical Examination of a Pseudoscience Hypothesis

2003· article· en· W148501131 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

VenueJournal of Geoscience Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPseudoscienceContext (archaeology)EpistemologyMathematics educationTest (biology)Scientific reasoningMantle (geology)TectonicsEarth sciencePsychologyGeologyGeophysicsPaleontologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

I ask my first-year physical geology students to write an essay examining the Crustal Displacement hypothesis (Flem-ath and Flem-ath, 1995), a hypothesis that is inconsistent with the accepted understanding of crustal and mantle processes. The assignment involves designing a test of the hypothesis, based on the material covered in our discussion of the theory of plate tectonics and of how the theory evolved. The assignment is useful because it forces students to solidify their understanding of plate tectonics by applying their knowledge in a new context, teaches them about the process of scientific reasoning and the need for objective analysis of all hypotheses, and gives them practice in critical thinking. This type of assignment could be applied to many comparable pseudoscience hypotheses in a wide range of geological disciplines.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.763
Threshold uncertainty score0.870

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.338 · 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