MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1994446026 · doi:10.1080/02635140120046268

Children's Ideas about Strengthening Structures

2001· article· en· W1994446026 on OpenAlex
Brenda J. Gustafson, Patricia M. Rowell, Dawn P. Rose

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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Science & Technological Education · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsAlberta Advanced EducationUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsVariety (cybernetics)VocabularyPedagogyMathematics educationPsychologyWork (physics)SociologyEngineeringComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research focused on 181 school children's (aged 5-13 years) responses to an Awareness of Technology Survey question intended to explore their conceptual knowledge of structural strength. The survey responses showed that the children had many productive ideas about structural strength prior to formal classroom instruction. After instruction, the children's ideas showed little overall change. The Discussion explores how the framework of the programme and professional development opportunities did not help the teachers to implement the programme. Suggestions for productive classroom experiences related to structural strength include: introducing children to a greater variety of building materials; assisting children to explore the physical and mechanical properties of materials; practising with vocabulary needed to describe properties of materials; providing opportunities to understand the pushes and pulls at work in a structure; and promoting design technology discourse.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesScience and technology studies
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.435
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.007
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.532
Teacher spread0.377 · 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