Collaborative Experiments Online in a Module Presented Globally
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 new module for Level 1 students called ‘Science Investigations’ provides an introduction to practical work, in an on-line environment. Most of the activities in the module require observational or experimental work done at home, with only the field work being ‘virtual’. The aim is to encourage practical and group work in an era when the amount of laboratory teaching is declining. Students are required to work in groups to design experiments and collect data sets. The assessment is computer-based, tailored to the type of final experiment that the student has been involved with. Tutorial help is provided both synchronously via video/audio conferencing and asynchronously via on-line forums. Students must meet minimum requirements in order to pass, including entering data into on-line databases, achieving satisfactory participation in tutorials and forums, and passing the end of module assessment. The key lesson learnt from the first presentation and survey data was that some students came with expectations that were at variance with the design philosophy of the module and that it is essential to make the module structure and the expectations for group work explicit at the start, to guide students in participating in experimental science in an online, distance learning environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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