MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2082955029 · doi:10.1080/14794802.2014.918349

Instrumental and documentational approaches: from technology use to documentation systems in university mathematics education

2014· article· en· W2082955029 on OpenAlex
Ghislaine Gueudet, Chantal Buteau, Vilma Mesa, Morten Misfeldt

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

VenueResearch in Mathematics Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDocumentationMathematics educationPedagogyComputer scienceSociologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article we present an instrumental approach in mathematics education, which focuses on the interactions between students, teachers, and artefacts. This approach analyses mediations attached to the use of a given artefact and instruments developed by the subjects from this artefact along instrumental geneses. We draw on three Research Cases at university to illustrate the use of this approach: the first is about students' geneses with a programming technology; the second about students' and teachers' geneses with a virtual learning environment; and the third about textbooks and teachers professional development. We also introduce the documentational approach, which draws on the instrumental approach, but takes into account the broader range of available resources. It distinguishes resources and documents developed by teachers from these resources, and studies teachers' documentation systems. We present a fourth Research Case concerning the documentation system of a mathematics teacher, and focusing on the place of technologies within this system.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.193
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.134
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.292 · 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