MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1498816699 · doi:10.1002/3527607838.ch5

Polishing Your Skills: Problem‐Solving Process

2005· other· en· W1498816699 on OpenAlexaff
Donald R. Woods

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typeother
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEmotional Intelligence and Performance
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSelf-assessmentCreativityProcess (computing)Context (archaeology)PsychologyComputer sciencePedagogySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter contains sections titled: Developing Awareness of the Problem-Solving Process Some Target Skills The TAPPS Roles: Talker and Listener Activity 5.1: (35 minutes) Feedback, Self-Assessment Strategies Some Target Skills The Extended TAPPS Roles: Talker+ and Listener+ Activity 5.2: (time 35 minutes) Feedback, Self-assessment Exploring the “Context”: what is the Real Problem? Example Activity 5-3 Creativity Some Target Skills Example: Case #10: To dry or not to dry! (based on Krishnaswamy and Parker, 1984) Activity 5-4 Feedback, Self-Assessment Self-Assessment Some Target Skills Activity for Growth in Self-Assessment Feedback About Assessment Summary and Self-Rating

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.200
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2110.011

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.340 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEmotional Intelligence and PerformanceFrench-language works237,207