An Innovative Modification to Structured Controversy
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
'Structured Controversy' (SC) is a co-operative learning activity where students, working in small groups, argue one side of an issue in Round 1 and then another side of the same issue in Round 2. Typically, for Round 2, student teams argue against the same team they heard and spoke with in Round 1. Our innovation is to have student teams matched with a different team for Round 2 (in addition to arguing another side of the issue), in what we call a 'Double Switch'. SC was successfully used in the course, 'Professional Issues', at the School of Physical Therapy, University of Saskatchewan, two years running in October 1999 and again in October 2000. The students reported a high degree of satisfaction with the SC activity and were challenged to think deeply about the issue in question. It appears that the modification we used (Double Switch)made Round 2 effective and as a result enhanced student 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it