MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2146101749 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v50i4.55073

Extending the Power of the Concept Map

2004· article· en· W2146101749 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Graham Passmore

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeographic Information Systems Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)PsychologyMathematics educationPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This pilot study introduces a scale to assess structural knowledge in concept maps. The need to increase our understanding of structural knowledge through improved assessment is made evident in a review of research that indicates that its quality is related to problem-solving abilities. The new scale is derived from Biggs and Collis' (1982) Structure of the Learning Outcome (SOLO) taxonomy and Rumelhart and Norman's (1978) modes of learning (structuring, accretion, and tuning). It is applied to link descriptions in an enhanced concept map structure that has been dubbed the "concept map+." Eight levels link quality can be recognized with the new scale. This builds on the original concept assessment scale of Novak and Gowin (1984) where just three types of link quality were acknowledged.

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.831
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.426
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations7
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicGeographic Information Systems StudiesFrench-language works237,207