MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1555374579 · doi:10.1387/tantak.3152

Testuliburuetako edukiaren eta itxuraren garapena: Anaya, Edebé eta Santillana argitaletxeak adibide

2007· article· eu· W1555374579 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Begoña Bilbao Bilbao, Karmele Perez

Bibliographic record

VenueTantak · 2007
Typearticle
Languageeu
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiteracy and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsidePublishingContext (archaeology)Quarter (Canadian coin)Content (measure theory)State (computer science)HistorySociologyArtLiteratureComputer scienceMathematicsArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

En este trabajo, hemos analizado las editoriales Anaya, Santillana y Edebé que son muy utilizadas en nuestras escuelas. Hemos comparado los textos publicados desde 1989 con la intención de observar los cambios ocurridos desde entonces tanto formales como de contenido. Para completar los iconos de los libros de texto se utiliza tecnología multimedia. Por termino medio cada página recoge dos iconos. Son pequeños. La mayoría de ellos ocupan menos de la cuarta parte de la página. Se colocan en la parte derecha de la página, probablemente por la influencia de estrategias publicitarias. La mayoría de los contenidos están ligados al Estado. Los contenidos socioculturales ligados a Euskal Herria han desaparecido de los libros analizados. Los datos denotan que los contenidos de los libros de texto cada vez son más estatales, dando cada vez menos importancia al contexto cercano. Los contenidos que se enseñan en las escuelas están lejos de la realizad de los alumnos, no tienen relación con su entorno natural, social y cultural.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0100.005
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0330.010

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designObservational
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
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTantakSame topicLiteracy and Educational PracticesFrench-language works237,207