MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Computer‐Aided Statistical Instruction—Multi‐Mediocre Techno‐Trash?

2007· article· en· W1605851646 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

VenueInternational Statistical Review · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData collectionSet (abstract data type)Fraction (chemistry)Statistical analysisComputer-aidedControl (management)Data setData scienceStatisticsArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary The very soul of statistics are data, but few students actually collect data as part of their statistical journey. The impediments to real data collection exercises are very real—they are logistically difficult to set up, expensive, and may not work because of extraneous events outside the control of the instructor. Computer‐aided laboratories are a way to bring many of the benefits of actual data collection to students at a fraction of the cost and can be easily controlled by the instructor. There are many computer‐aided modules available—indeed a search on Google gave over 1 million hits. Some modules are good but many are mediocre. What separates the gems from the trash?

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0040.000

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 head0.232
GPT teacher head0.519
Teacher spread0.287 · 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