Beliefs About Knowledge, Knowing, and Learning: Differences Across Knowledge Types in Physics
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
The authors examined whether students’ epistemic and learning beliefs varied across different knowledge types in physics. On the basis of various beliefs frameworks, the authors predicted that individuals’ beliefs would vary within a domain across the same content when presented conceptually versus procedurally. Participants were 81 high school students enrolled in an advanced physics course. Students completed a conceptually oriented test and a procedurally oriented test on the same content 1 week apart, and they immediately responded to the Epistemological Beliefs Assessment for Physical Science questionnaire after completion of each test. Results revealed that girls espoused more constructivist beliefs about physics for conceptual knowledge than for procedural knowledge, whereas the opposite was found for boys. Moreover, female students espoused more constructivist beliefs than did male students across both types. These results have important theoretical and methodological implications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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