MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2030525854 · doi:10.1002/tea.20332

Scientific literacy and contexts in PISA 2006 science

2009· article· en· W2030525854 on OpenAlexaff
Rodger W. Bybee, Peter J. Fensham, Robert Laurie

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Science Teaching · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational Assessment and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsGovernment of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScientific literacyScience educationPopular scienceLiteracyLibrary scienceCitationMathematics educationSociologyComputer sciencePedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

International assessments contribute to a greater understanding of science education around the world by helping participating countries understand potential changes in policies, programs, and practices in science teaching. In 2006, science was the primary domain for the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA), supported by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and conducted by the Australian Council for Educational Research (ACER). Compared to the school program orientation of Trends in International Math and Science Study (TIMSS), PISA provides a unique and complementary perspective by focusing on the application of knowledge to science and technology-related life situations. The orientation of PISA is one of scientific literacy, a theme of great importance to the science education community.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.004
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0000.010
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.146
GPT teacher head0.596
Teacher spread0.450 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations40
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research in Science TeachingSame topicEducational Assessment and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207