MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Bubble Mixture Experiment Project for Use in an Advanced Design of Experiments Class

2007· article· en· W2107733460 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Statistics Education · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicOptimal Experimental Design Methods
Canadian institutionsCamosun CollegeUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaProcter and Gamble
KeywordsClass (philosophy)Design of experimentsComputer scienceFocus (optics)Soap bubbleIdeal (ethics)Mathematics educationMathematicsStatisticsArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article gives an example of how student-conducted experiments can enhance a course in the design of experiments. We focus on a project whose aim is to find a good mixture of water, soap and glycerin for making soap bubbles. This project is relatively straightforward to implement and understand. At its most basic level the project introduces students to mixture experiments and general issues in experimental design such as choosing and measuring an appropriate response, selecting a design, the effect of using repeats versus replicates, model building, making predictions, etc. To accommodate more advanced students, the project can be easily enhanced to draw on various areas of statistics, such as generalized linear models, robust design, and optimal design. Therefore it is ideal for a graduate level course as it encourages students to look beyond the basics presented in class.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.515

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.272
GPT teacher head0.541
Teacher spread0.268 · 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