Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, I tried to investigate the distinctive aspects of the high school student’s historical understanding, focussed on the power, putting historical knowledge to practical use, to write history essay. For this, 342 highschool students were asked to wrote out their own historical essay as a important part of a term examination, about the upheaval of status system in the latter term of the Joseon Dynasty. The question reads as follows. “At the end of 18th century, a male servant Childuk had lived in chung cheong-do. Yeuckgap was a ordinary peasant lived in jeon ra-do, contemporary of Childuk. Yeuckgap and Childuk were a servant and a peasant in their early days, but when old aged, they acted like a noble blood, Yang-Ban. What ever had happened to them? Write your idea about this.” 286 students handed in meaningful answer paper, 26 students guessed, but far off the mark and 30 failed completely. Then I analyzed and essays in detail, under some criterion ; student’s knowledge, clear grip of the kernel of the question, power of thinking collectively in the historical context. This research has found that not a few students have a difficulty in chronological thinking. They mixed up the times of ImJin Waeran with the 18th century in making out essay. A quarter of all student, could write essay in recognition of the examiner’s intention. Then, about one third of them, that is to say, only 10% of all examinee, could reached the satisfactory writing, Which contained accurate knowledge, historical context or proper situation to 18th century, flowing and elegant style.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.003 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".