MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156780206 · doi:10.1080/10749039.2013.790905

The Case of Mitchell's Cube: Interactive and Reflexive Positioning During Collaborative Learning in Mathematics

2013· article· en· W2156780206 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

VenueMind Culture and Activity · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflexivityProcess (computing)Mathematics educationComputer scienceQualitative researchCube (algebra)Position (finance)Collaborative learningHuman–computer interactionPsychologyPedagogySociologyMathematicsSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Using positioning theory as a guiding framework, this qualitative research examined the experiences of students who appeared to be marginalized from collaborative learning in mathematics in a middle school setting. Positioning theory describes the discursive process whereby people are located in conversations as observably and subjectively coherent participants in jointly produced story lines. Interactive positioning describes when one or more persons position another individual. Reflexive positioning describes the positioning of oneself. In this research, I examined instances of (mis)alignment between interactive and reflexive positioning during collaborative learning. Factors potentially contributing to (mis)alignment are considered as well as implications for students, learning, and instruction.

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)0.001
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.427
Threshold uncertainty score0.344

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.343 · 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