MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2058357773 · doi:10.1119/1.4775536

Measuring the Effectiveness of Simulations in Preparing Students for the Laboratory

2013· article· en· W2058357773 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Physics Teacher · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceVirtual LaboratoryWork (physics)Mathematics educationPhysics educationVirtual labComputer labTeaching methodMultimediaEngineeringPsychologyMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Computer simulations (we use the word liberally here to include applets, animations, apps, etc.) have been making steady progress as teaching tools. Large collections of simulations, created by individuals1,2 and by groups,3 are freely available. More recently, research on the effectiveness of simulations as teaching tools, particularly focused on the teaching of concepts, has been an area of interest.4,5 We have been using simulations at Thompson Rivers University (TRU) to help prepare students for the physics lab for the past five years. In work by others, simulations were used in the pre-laboratory work to prepare students on a conceptual level.6 In our case the simulations are used to help prepare students for the experimental aspect. The current work focuses on students' need to take data in the lab and how students can be prepared to efficiently obtain that data.

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)0.003
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.379
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.418
Teacher spread0.321 · 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