MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1583041253 · doi:10.1075/gs.4.22ger

Chapter 18. Seeing the graph vs. being the graph

2011· book-chapter· en· W1583041253 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

VenueGesture studies · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraphComputer scienceCombinatoricsMathematicsTheoretical computer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study is situated within a body of new work in mathematics education that involves studies of gesture, kinesthetic learning and embodied metaphor and mathematical understandings (for example, Lakoff & Núñez, 2000; Nemirovsky & Borba, 2003; Goldin-Meadow, Kim & Singer, 1999). This chapter reports findings from the first two years of the author’s multi-year study exploring variations of secondary students’ gestures when asked to describe mathematical graphs. Three diagnostic categories emerged from this data with regard to learners’ degree of imaginative engagement and ability to notice mathematically salient features when encountering graphs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.587
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.260 · 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