MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W202251626 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6091-506-2_2

Foundations of Scientific, Mathematical, and Technological Literacies—Common Themes and Theoretical Frameworks

2011· book-chapter· en· W202251626 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

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2011
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNumeracyScientific literacyLiteracyMathematics educationScience educationIndigenousFoundation (evidence)Science, technology, society and environment educationEngineering ethicsSociologyPedagogyPolitical scienceEngineeringPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Pacific CRYSTAL Centre for Scientific and Technological Literacy was proposed knowing that many people in the academic and educational communities did not have or share common definitions of scientific literacy and mathematical literacy (also known as numeracy) and that the efforts to define and share technological, computer science, and engineering literacies were much more limited. However, Pacific CRYSTAL was designed on an interdisciplinary foundation involving (a) formal and informal environments for learning about science, mathematics, and technology; (b) scientists and engineers from these academic disciplines; and (c) educational researchers from counselling psychology, environmental education, indigenous studies, language and literacy, mathematics education, science education, and technology education.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.016
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.279 · 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