MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1682220705 · doi:10.20355/c5d01d

Avaliação dialógica: desafios e perspectivas (Dialogical assessment: challenges and perspectives)

2014· article· en· W1682220705 on OpenAlex
Márcia Aparecida Silva

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Contemporary Issues in Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistics and Education Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDialogical selfProcess (computing)Subject (documents)Work (physics)PedagogyPsychologySociologyComputer scienceSocial psychologyLibrary scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Assessment is a very important tool to observe the learning process. However, in Brazil, it is sometimes used in schools just to measure the students' knowledge, not to help them to learn, just to check what they already know about a subject. For this reason, it is important to [re]think how assessment can help students to learn during the learning process. In Avaliao dialgica: desafios e perspectivas (Dialogical assessment: challenges and perspectives), Romo discusses how assessment can really help the students learn during the learning process. He aims to discuss assessment not just as a one-sided tool, but also as a dialogical learning tool which allows both students and teachers to work together.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.497

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.249 · 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