MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169974798

Back to Pascal: retro but not backwards

2002· article· en· W2169974798 on OpenAlexaff
Katrin Becker

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of computing sciences in colleges · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPascal (unit)Computer scienceProgramming languageOpposition (politics)InstitutionMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical scienceLaw
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The debate over which language to use when teaching beginning programming has persisted for decades. One institution has elected to give Pascal a second chance. The rationale for this change and some early experiences are outlined. The difficulties experienced when this institution used C++ are described and the requirements for a first language are listed. Pascal satisfies most of the requirements as specified. Opposition to the change was noted and countered. Now, after the first semester of use, some clear advantages as well as disadvantages are evident.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0020.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.022

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations9
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of computing sciences in collegesSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207