MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975860171 · doi:10.1002/sce.20226

Model‐based inquiries in chemistry

2007· article· en· W1975860171 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationClass (philosophy)Chemistry educationChemistryPsychologyStudent engagementScience educationProcess (computing)PedagogyComputer scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this paper, instructional strategies for sustaining model‐based inquiry in an undergraduate chemistry class were analyzed through data collected from classroom observations, a student survey, and in‐depth problem‐solving sessions with the instructor and students. Analysis of teacher–student interactions revealed a cyclical pattern in which students generated, evaluated, and modified (GEM) hypotheses throughout the course. It is hypothesized that sustained involvement in the GEM cycle contributed to students' engagement with scientific inquiry and model construction and revision. As such, GEM represents a promising approach toward achieving process and content goals in the undergraduate chemistry classroom. © 2007 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed , 91: 877–905, 2007

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.710

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.327 · 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