MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2183901088 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v5i1.533

Mind, Brain, and Education: The Birth of a New Science

2011· article· en· W2183901088 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Michel D. Ferrari, Hazel McBride

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive Function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)PsychologyEngineering ethicsCognitive scienceNeuroscienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we examine the history of the emerging discipline of Mind, Brain, and Education (MBE) and explore the benefits as well as the difficulties involved in integrating neuroscience into educational policy and practice. We examine the power of neuroscience to impact practice and document the rise of neuromyths. History is on the side of the new discipline of MBE, but there is still much important work to be done to make neuroscientific findings accessible, comprehensible, and relevant to educators.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0070.042
Scholarly communication0.0150.025
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0050.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.239 · 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.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLEARNing LandscapesSame topicNeuroscience, Education and Cognitive FunctionFrench-language works237,207