MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1680281955 · doi:10.5539/jsd.v8n6p104

Modern Requirements to the Content Selection of Teaching Physics and Mathematics, Aimed at the Development of Design and Technical Competence of Technical University Students

2015· article· en· W1680281955 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ilsiyar M. Zaripova, В.Н. Иванов, Zulfiya F. Zaripova, Rovzan S. Khataeva, Irina Ershova, Nadezhda I. Merlina, Aigul R. Ganeeva, Е.В. Павлова

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Sustainable Development · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStructuringCompetence (human resources)Mathematics educationModular designPresentation (obstetrics)Consolidation (business)Selection (genetic algorithm)Engineering ethicsComputer scienceEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The research’s relevance of the defined in the article problem is due to the fact that when the study of physical-mathematical disciplines the consolidation of the acquired knowledge occurs and the development of skills contribute to their using in manufacture problems’ solving in the professional activities of the engineer. In this regard, this article is aimed at the development of modern requirements to the content selection of teaching physics and mathematics, aimed at the development of design and technical competence of technical University students. In the study of this problem the modular competency approach is set out, which allows on the base of the required competencies of future technical specialists to identify the following basic requirements for the selection of the content of teaching physics and mathematics: the disciplines’ integrity and fundamentality, systematic and consistent presentation of educational material, problematic and innovativeness of their content, their interdisciplinary, professional orientation, orientation on the formation of logical thinking of students. The article can be useful in selecting and structuring the content of teaching physics and mathematics courses in high school, as well as in the future teachers’ training of these disciplines.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.103
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Sustainable DevelopmentSame topicEducational Methods and Teacher DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207