MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097975504

Snail Trails and Science Tales: Inventing Scientific Knowledge

2002· article· en· W2097975504 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of environmental education · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicScience Education and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEleganceVariety (cybernetics)Sociology of scientific knowledgeScience educationScience communicationPopular scienceSociologyEngineering ethicsPsychologyEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceAestheticsPedagogyEngineeringComputer scienceArtPhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Western culture, people think of scientists as specialists at inventing knowledge of the world and how it works. Science knowledge is stories told by scientists. Theories are either compelling and accepted by other scientists and the public, or, if they lack elegance and believability, they are ignored or discarded. The authors assert that children can best communicate their science learning through a variety of communication strategies: written, oral, graphic and artistic means provide a richness unmatched by standardized tests. Although this article focuses on the situation and needs as found in California and the United States, the YES Science Project and its€ materials are available through Canadian 4-H.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.701
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.265 · 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