Kyoto Redoux: Assessment of an Environmental Science Collaborative Learning Project for Undergraduate, Non-Science Majors.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
How can we present science in a format that will allow collegelevel undergraduates not majoring in the sciences, including elementary education preservice teachers, to grasp an understanding of, and to gain, an appreciation for science in terms of everyday life and in the context that science is important in their own fields of interest? It is with these assumptions that “Kyoto Redoux,” the major project for the course “Global Change,” was chosen to be a simulation of the Conference of the Parties-3 (COP-3), sponsored by the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) in Kyoto, Japan. The purpose of this study was to examine students’ perceptions of this collaborative course project as a component of a process evaluation of “Adventures in Science,” a pilot program of a newly designed, interdisciplinary environmental science program for undergraduate, non-science majors. Non-traditional evaluation tools, including portfolios, focus groups, and team and selfassessments were employed. The research led us to a better understanding of practical, pedagogical applications in applying science content to non-science majors’ career goals, promoting problem-solving skills in collaborative contexts, and structuring and assessing students’ environmental course experiences. Resume Comment presenter les sciences de facon a permettre a des etudiants universitaires de premier cycle non specialises en sciences, y compris des stagiaires en enseignement elementaire, de comprendre et d’apprecier la science quant a son applicabilite dans la vie de tous les jours et a son importance pour leur propre domaine d’interet? En se basant sur ce
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".