MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2012283428 · doi:10.1145/1709424.1709460

Naturally occurring data as research instrument

2010· article· en· W2012283428 on OpenAlexaff
Raymond Lister, Tony Clear, Dennis Bouvier, Paul Carter, Anna Eckerdal, Jana Jacková, Mike Lopez, Robert McCartney, Phil Robbins, Otto Seppälä, Errol Thompson

Bibliographic record

VenueACM SIGCSE Bulletin · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceTaxonomy (biology)SyntaxTracingProgramming languageCode (set theory)Replication (statistics)Extension (predicate logic)Mathematics educationNatural language processingPsychologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In New Zealand and Australia, the BRACElet project has been investigating students' acquisition of programming skills in introductory programming courses. The project has explored students' skills in basic syntax, tracing code, understanding code, and writing code, seeking to establish the relationships between these skills. This ITiCSE working group report presents the most recent step in the BRACElet project, which includes replication of earlier analysis using a far broader pool of naturally occurring data, refinement of the SOLO taxonomy in code-explaining questions, extension of the taxonomy to code-writing questions, extension of some earlier studies on students' 'doodling' while answering exam questions, and exploration of a further theoretical basis for work that until now has been primarily empirical.

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)0.081
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.247
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.081
Threshold uncertainty score0.430

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0810.247
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0100.018
Science and technology studies0.0050.010
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.002

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 head0.114
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.272 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations127
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueACM SIGCSE BulletinSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207