MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1532694232 · doi:10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p285

A Comprehensive Look at Multi-Age Education

2015· article· en· W1532694232 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 Educational and Social Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyMathematics educationPolitical scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-grade schooling has been used in many countries around the globe. It is a cost effective model of schooling especially in rural areas where teacher retention and recruitment is a major problem. The findings of various research studies indicate that multi-grade education is as effective as single-grade schooling in terms of academic achievement and better in terms of social learning. The success of multiage education greatly depends on teaching techniques. Our universities prepare teachers for single-grades. Therefore, teachers in multi-grade settings face many challenges such as inadequate training, social and cultural isolation, instructional, lack of time, lack of community understanding, and rural nature of most of the multi-grade settings. Some of the issues can be overcome through proper pre-service and in-service teacher training. DOI: 10.5901/jesr.2015.v5n2p285

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.463
Threshold uncertainty score0.482

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.480
GPT teacher head0.603
Teacher spread0.122 · 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