MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2113160593 · doi:10.5539/hes.v4n6p31

Interest in Subject Matter: The Mathematics Predicament

2014· article· en· W2113160593 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jerome I. Rotgans, Henk G. Schmidt

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicProblem and Project Based Learning
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubject matterMathematics educationSubject (documents)Content analysisPsychologyVariance (accounting)PedagogyComputer scienceCurriculumSociologySocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study sought to explore (a) the extent to which certain school subjects are perceived sui generis more interesting than others and (b) the extent to which students’ interest in a subject is related to their study choices. A mixed-methods approach was chosen in which an individual interest questionnaire and an open-ended question were administered to 4,068 students at a polytechnic in Singapore. Data were analyzed by means of analysis of variance and content analysis of the responses to the open-ended question. The results suggest that mathematics courses were considered least interesting of all school subjects. Moreover, having to complete mathematics courses was responsible for a significant decrease in perceived interest for the entire study program the students were enrolled in. The content analysis revealed that students believe that mathematics is not in itself less interesting but that courses can be improved by providing more adequate learning resources and structure. Implications of these findings are discussed.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.295 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher Education StudiesSame topicProblem and Project Based LearningFrench-language works237,207