MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Instructional Module in Fourier Spectral Analysis, Based on Principles of “How People Learn”

2003· article· en· W2172253928 on OpenAlexaff
Julie Greenberg, Natalie Smith, John H. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Engineering Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsSmiths Detection (Canada)
FundersEngineering Research CentersPennsylvania State UniversityNorthwestern UniversityUniversity of Southern California
KeywordsRubricComputer scienceContext (archaeology)Peer assessmentMathematics educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper describes the design and evaluation of an instructional module for teaching/learning Fourier spectral analysis, with emphasis on biomedical applications. The module is based on the principles of “How People Learn” (HPL) as embodied in the Legacy cycle. This cycle is a particular instantiation of problem‐based learning and includes components explicitly aimed at providing context and motivation, facilitating exploration, developing in‐depth understanding, and incorporating opportunities for self‐assessment. In the spectral analysis module, traditional teaching methods are augmented with small group discussions, peer‐to‐peer learning, a Web‐based tutorial, and an interactive demonstration. Assessment included the development of rubrics for scoring student understanding of key concepts, revealing that students who used the module demonstrated better understanding relative to students who studied the material using traditional methods. Survey results and comments indicate that students generally liked the interactive tutorial and demonstration, as well as the structure provided by the HPL framework.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.003

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.196 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations32
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Engineering EducationSame topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207