MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1514617626 · doi:10.5296/elr.v1i2.7900

Reflection on Mathematics Classroom Discourse: The Perspective of Critical Pedagogy

2015· article· en· W1514617626 on OpenAlex
Xiong Wang

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

VenueEducation and Linguistics Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Reflection (computer programming)Mathematics educationDiscourse analysisPedagogyPresentation (obstetrics)Critical discourse analysisSociologyLinguisticsPsychologyComputer sciencePolitical sciencePhilosophyIdeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A close attention has been paid to classroom discourse by researchers and teachers in the recent years. However, scanty research is conducted on the reflection of the mathematics classroom discourse from the perspective of critical pedagogy. Such angle will be adopted in this paper to address the research gap. The reflection on the mathematics classroom discourse is made by presenting the interactive discourse as an expectation of mathematics classroom teaching and by indicating the exclusive discourse and its costs with recourse to commenting the dominant mathematics classroom teaching. The presentation of interactive discourse and the indication of exclusive discourse are not about to offer a solution to dominant discourse but trigger the further consideration into the discourse in mathematics classroom.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.050
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
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 score0.981
Threshold uncertainty score0.958

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.050
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.324
GPT teacher head0.633
Teacher spread0.309 · 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