MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053156300 · doi:10.5539/ass.v6n3p142

Philosophical Thoughts in the Teaching of Electrodynamics

2010· article· en· W2053156300 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Social Science · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMechatronics Education and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Mathematics educationEpistemologySociologyPhysicsTheoretical physicsComputer sciencePsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As the important part of the theoretical physics, the electrodynamics is a theoretical basic course of the physics and relative subjects. To adapt the demands for cultivating the target of highly-quality talents in the 21st century, to properly add relative philosophical thoughts can not only deepen students’ cognition about the electromagnetic law, but can further cultivate students’ scientific thinking ability, which is very important for cultivating innovational talents with high quality. Combining with teaching experiences, the philosophical thoughts in the teaching of electrodynamics are analyzed in this article from five aspects including the general and the special, the abstract and the concrete, the local and the whole, the matter and the movement, and the time and the space.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.469
Threshold uncertainty score0.125

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.271 · 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