Aprendizagem ativa em ótica geométrica: experimentos e demonstrações investigativas
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is nowadays consensus among the physics education researchers that the traditional teaching methods are not the most effective in promoting real engagement of the students in the teaching/learning process. Several researchers named Active Learning (AL), methods that require this engagement and research evidences indicate that this approach is the most effective, a better comprehension of the basic physics concepts is verified. However, particularly in Brazil, there are few didactic materials available using AL approaches. This works aims to fulfill this need in the field of Geometrical Optics, offering a series of tutorials (guides) for experiments and interactive demonstrations. These tutorials are based in the idea of guided investigation where the students previous beliefs are exposed and confronted with the scientific concepts. This material was applied to high school students (in public schools) and college students (science teacher preparation course of IFSC). In order to evaluate this material, written tests were performed as well as observation of classrooms.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it