MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1542165207 · doi:10.20360/g2c88p

Scaffolding Student Writing

2011· article· en· W1542165207 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeneralizationMathematics educationPsychologyScaffoldComputer sciencePedagogyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improvement of student writing continues to be a focus for teachers. An effective approach to scaffolding student writing is through the utilization of researched-based tools and strategies. This study examined the effectiveness of teacher-prepared criteria/information handouts to the use of a teacher-adapted graphic organizer for improvement of student book-response writing. Through a student-completed survey generalization, or environmental change, was also investigated. Evidence supports generalization, and findings indicate significant increases within student book-response writing for the number of areas included for analysis, number of points made, and number of supporting points. Implications for students, teachers, and future research are considered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.131
Threshold uncertainty score0.280

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.328 · 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