MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074394672 · doi:10.1093/elt/ccq053

Teaching with Bear

2010· article· en· W2074394672 on OpenAlex
S. Burwood

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

VenueELT Journal · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Technology Integration
Canadian institutionsVancouver Community College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFeelingReading (process)Visual artsPsychologyMathematics educationArtLinguisticsSocial psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A few weeks ago, there was a loud knock on my front door, and there on the doorstep was a large parcel; my long awaited teaching assistant had arrived. Inside the parcel was a copy of Mary Slattery's Teaching with Bear and of course Bear himself, wearing a smart blue jacket and feeling a little worse for wear after his long trip across the Atlantic in the hold of a plane. After settling him in with some honey muffins, we sat down together to review the book and its accompanying DVD. Teaching with Bear is designed for the young learners’ elementary classroom (up to the age of about 11) and consists of a 25-cm bear hand puppet, a teacher's book, and DVD. The teacher's book provides a guide to using and teaching with Bear and the accompany DVD serves to bring the content to life, which is especially vital for teachers who may feel unsure about using a puppet in the classroom. I would recommend watching part of the DVD straightaway after reading the Introduction because the rationale for using Bear becomes immediately evident. Teachers can then go back and work through the chapters after this initial taste. I think the delightful clips filmed in a number of young learner classrooms would inspire all but the most jaded teachers.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score0.717

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.324 · 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