<i>A follow‐up study of students using portable computers at a secondary school</i>
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper reports on the findings of a 1999 study that set out to investigate the current perceptions of students and teachers towards the use of portable computers at a secondary school. The aim was to compare these with the findings of a 1995 study carried out by the researcher at the same school. Data were collected from 102 Year Twelve students (17 year old), 104 Year Eight students (13 year old) and 40 teachers. The results indicated that for the Year Twelve students the computers had been of limited value while the Year Eight students appeared to be divided with about a quarter indicating negative attitudes. For the younger students the computers appeared to be used more often and for a greater range of tasks. Many teachers indicated concerns about the management of computers in the classroom and linking computer use to learning outcomes. These perceptions underline the need for targeted professional development, systematic support for the development of student computer‐related skills, and changes in the curriculum towards more learner‐centred approaches.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it