MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104665068 · doi:10.26522/tl.v6i1.374

Every Picture Tells a Story: The Roundhouse Process in the Digital Age

2011· article· en· W2104665068 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueTeaching and Learning · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMemorizationCreativityPsychologyRecallProcess (computing)Working memoryCognitive psychologyCognitionMental representationSchema (genetic algorithms)Construct (python library)Computer scienceCognitive scienceSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Roundhouse is a theory-driven, cognitive-based, visual story map designed to enhance long-term memory (Trowbridge & Wandersee, 1998). This type of graphic organizer requires learners to construct knowledge using “mindful” visual connections to replace often “mindless” practices involving recitation/memorization of abstract content. Students thereby create an observable schema of related concepts and icons in a sequential fashion. Roundhouse builds upon a student’s mental representation of what is already known, using a specified diagramming process called PDR (Plan – Diagram – Reflect). Studies have indicated that one of the benefits of using this technique is that students visualize their Roundhouse diagrams during assessment, promoting enhanced recall. Creativity, self-efficacy, and motivation for student understanding have been demonstrated in Roundhouse diagramming that incorporates digital technologies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.003
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.356
Teacher spread0.288 · 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