MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1908152752

Research into STS science education

2011· article· pt· W1908152752 on OpenAlexaff
Glen S. Aikenhead

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2011
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumEngineering ethicsPosition (finance)PedagogySociologyScience educationPosition paperScience, technology, society and environment educationCurriculum developmentPolitical scienceEngineeringComputer scienceBusiness
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

(Driver et al., 1996; Fensham, 1992). Traditional school science attempts to socialize students into a scientific way of thinking and believing. Although only a small minority of students succeeds at developing a scientific worldview (Costa, 1995), educators are rewarded for having identified this academic elite group of students for the purpose of supplying university science and engineering programs. The other students who do not see themselves as future scientists and engineers are screened out. Generally, they do not embrace a scientific worldview. They do not think like a scientist. They do not want to think like a scientist. They experience school science as a foreign culture. They are outsiders to the school’s pre-professional training in science. This large majority of high school students responds well to science courses that promote practical utility, human values, and a connectedness with personal and societal issues, taught from a student-centered orientation (rather than the scientist-centered orientation found in traditional science

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.997
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.010
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0370.003

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.

Opus teacher head0.097
GPT teacher head0.371
Teacher spread0.274 · 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.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations7
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicScience Education and PerceptionsFrench-language works237,207