MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154199045

Use of Computer-Based Data Acquisition to Teach Physics Laboratories: Case Study- Simple Harmonic Motion

2010· article· en· W2154199045 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.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie Supérieure
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimple harmonic motionData acquisitionSimple (philosophy)Computer scienceProcess (computing)Motion (physics)Human–computer interactionHarmonicInterface (matter)Artificial intelligencePhysicsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several experiments and demonstrations using computer-based data acquisition systems have been developed in our physics laboratory. These computer applications enable students to collect, display and analyse data in real-time. They also enhance the learning process by helping students visualize and understand the relationship between the theory and the observed behaviour in an easy and intuitive way. In this paper, we describe the real-time laboratory experiment of Simple Harmonic Motion that we have developed which employs computer-based pedagogical tools. In particular, we demonstrate how computers can actively interface with experiments, rather than simply play a passive role in data acquisition and analysis. We also discuss the interaction between students and the instructor.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.661

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicExperimental Learning in EngineeringFrench-language works237,207