Adults' Understanding of Inversion Concepts: How Does Performance on Addition and Subtraction Inversion Problems Compare to Performance on Multiplication and Division Inversion Problems?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Problems of the form a + b - b have been used to assess conceptual understanding of the relationship between addition and subtraction. No study has investigated the same relationship between multiplication and division on problems of the form d x e / e. In both types of inversion problems, no calculation is required if the inverse relationship between the operations is understood. Adult participants solved addition/subtraction and multiplication/division inversion (e.g., 9 x 22 / 22) and standard (e.g., 2 + 27 - 28) problems. Participants started to use the inversion strategy earlier and more frequently on addition/subtraction problems. Participants took longer to solve both types of multiplication/division problems. Overall, conceptual understanding of the relationship between multiplication and division was not as strong as that between addition and subtraction. One explanation for this difference in performance is that the operation of division is more weakly represented and understood than the other operations and that this weakness affects performance on problems of the form d x e / e.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".