Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is not uncommon for university instructors and teaching assistants to find themselves outside their âcomfort zonesâ. They may be required to teach and explain concepts that are outside their area of expertise or that they have never had to articulate to beginners before (Huston, 2009). This may especially be the case for graduate students, who must transition from the role of âlearnerâ to the role of âexpertâ, as they are required to act as teaching assistants, and, in some cases, course instructors. In this session, participants will explore the underlying psychology of confidence, including phenomena such as the spotlight effect, impostor phenomenon, and stereotype threat. Based on these phenomena, they will consider strategies to boost their confidence, both inside and outside of the classroom. Participants will consider these strategies in specific contexts where they experience low and high confidence. The goal of the session is to make participants aware of pervasive psychological biases that result in low confidence and to have them identify ways of overcoming some of these biases. Ultimately, being more confident in the classroom should result in the graduate student instructor feeling more comfortable and in undergraduate students having more confidence in their learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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".