Exploring Evolutionary Concepts with Immersive Simulations
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents two iterations of our design of an immersive simulation and inquiry activity for exploring evolutionary concepts in a Grade 11 Biology course. Interacting with large projected displays of animated rainforest flora and fauna, students worked as field researchers to observe changes in life forms occurring over a 200 million year span. Students gathered evidence of evolution using networked tablet computers that scaffolded their interactions with peers and with the room itself. Improvements from the first to the second design iteration focused on (1) improving content-focused interactions within the simulation; (2) improving the integration of the simulation activity into the overall curriculum; (3) improving embodied interactions of students working within the physical space. Student explanations from the second implementation demonstrated increased variation in evolutionary topics compared to those in the first iteration. Key design features from the two iterations are discussed with respect to the observed interaction patterns.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it