MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1520025562

Lessons Learned: On Educational Picture Books

2010· article· en· W1520025562 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Dixon

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSocial Development and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)CurriculumPicture booksMathematics educationThe InternetPedagogyPsychologySociologyVisual artsComputer scienceWorld Wide WebArtPolitical science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AS ANY TEACHER will corroborate, subjects covered in an elementary school classroom are never limited to those mandated by provincial curricula. Teaching is serendipitous: a geometry lesson can encourage a discussion about architecture, fossils make children aware of their own skeletons and reading William Carlos Williams ’ “The Red Wheelbarrow ” can lead to talk of free-range chickens and or-ganic farming. Thus a teacher must be prepared to answer an infinite number of questions and be willing to defer to outside sources when she does not readily know the answers. As well, a good teacher will become aware of the current concerns of her students and incorporate those concerns into curricular and non-curricular les-sons. At home, in the schoolyard, online or watching TV, children are constantly ex-posed to new ideas and concepts. To answer the questions raised by these new ideas, teachers may draw from their own knowledge first and the Internet second. Additionally, teachers often turn to picture books not only to provide answers but also to generate thorough discussions. Picture books are excellent educational tools precisely because they do more than just simply answer questions. More than most media, good picture books expose children to other worlds and other ways of think-NEWFOUNDLAND AND LABRADOR STUDIES, 25, 2 (2010)

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.341

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.009
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1020.034

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 head0.118
GPT teacher head0.478
Teacher spread0.360 · 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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSocial Development and Education ResearchFrench-language works237,207