MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115755306 · doi:10.1021/ed100298e

Clock Reaction: Outreach Attraction

2010· article· en· W2115755306 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yuen‐ying Carpenter, Heather A. Phillips, Michael B. Jakubinek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicVarious Chemistry Research Topics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOutreachMathematics educationChemistryAdventureCurriculumChemistry educationPsychologyMedical educationPedagogyComputer scienceMedicineEnthusiasmPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemistry students are often introduced to the concept of reaction rates through demonstrations or laboratory activities involving the well-known iodine clock reaction. For example, a laboratory experiment involving thiosulfate as an iodine scavenger is part of the first-year general chemistry laboratory curriculum at Dalhousie University. With the necessary materials, expertise, and laboratory space readily available, this undergraduate clock reaction experiment was modified to make it accessible to grade 9 students. The revised, qualitative experiment has been performed as an on-campus outreach initiative with eight grade 9 classes, reaching a total of 250 students, teachers, parents, and aides. The activity was facilitated by graduate student volunteers, who assisted the grade 9 students as they were exposed to a colorful adventure involving kinetics, chemical reactions, and catalysis. In general, adapting undergraduate experiments offers researchers and educators a positive and efficient way to introduce younger students to a university chemistry laboratory.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.952

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2850.064

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.315
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicVarious Chemistry Research TopicsFrench-language works237,207