Means of Choice for Interactive Management of Dynamic Geometry Problems Based on Instrumented Behaviour
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our paper presents a project that involves two research questions: does the choice of a related problem by the tutorial system allow the problem solving process which is blocked for the student to be restarted? What information about learning do related problems returned by the system provide us? We answer the first question according to the didactic engineering, whose mode of validation is internal and based on the confrontation between an a priori analysis and an a posteriori analysis that relies on data from experiments in schools. We consider the student as a subject whose adaptation processes are conditioned by the problem and the possible interactions with the computer environment, and also by his knowledge, usually implicit, of the institutional norms that condition his relationship with geometry. Choosing a set of good problems within the system is therefore an essential element of the learning model. Since the source of a problem depends on the student’s actions with the computer tool, it is necessary to wait and see what are the related to problems that are returned to him before being able to identify patterns and assess the learning. With the simultaneity of collecting and analysing interactions in each class, we answer the second question according to a grounded theory analysis. By approaching the problems posed by the system and the designs in play at learning blockages, our analysis links the characteristics of problems to the design components in order to theorize on the decisional, epistemological, representational, didactic and instrumental aspects of the subject-milieu system in interaction.
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 | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".