MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083747056 · doi:10.1119/1.3246459

What Should We Expect Students to Learn?

2009· article· en· W2083747056 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsJohn Abbott College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnthusiasmPhysics educationMathematics educationSobel operatorLaypersonsortRelevance (law)Object (grammar)EpistemologyPhysicsMathematicsComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A rejoinder to Sobel's comment on “Are most people too dumb for physics?” We read Michael Sobel's response with much interest and appreciate his enthusiasm and commitment to physics education. Yet, we continue to find that our goals and methods differ markedly. Foremost, because we do not agree that physics is a “different category” of hard which is accessible to a select few (i.e., “a certain sort of very bright student”), we cannot agree that ordinary, nonscience students must be taught a different kind of physics. We object to the idea of two “types” of physics—one for the layperson and one for the specialist. Physics must have relevance for everyone.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.568
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.211
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.282 · 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