Breakdown in the metacognitive chain: Good intentions aren’t enough in high school.
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
a b s t r a c t Two experiments examined the effects of a metacognitive betting implementation in high school Biology students. The results showed that people were generally good at monitoring their own knowledge in that students performed better on items judged with high bets than items judged with low bets. We also found that those who were required to make bets, as compared to those who did not, had higher intentions of studying for longer periods of time, prior to the test. However, there were no differences in actual study time. Nor was there a difference in final performance, as one would expect, between the betters and the non-betters. In summary, we found indication of (1) good intentions when using the betting procedure, but (2) breakdown in the metacognitive chain during control. That is, while requiring students to make deliberate judgments improves their intentions to study, they, unfortunately, fail to carry out those intentions.
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 | 0.007 | 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 | 0.002 |
| 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