MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2234454808 · doi:10.36834/cmej.36648

Book Review: Making Thinking Visible

2015· article· en· W2234454808 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kenneth D. Royal, Lizette Hardie

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Medical Education Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeography and Education Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedical educationComputer scienceMathematics educationPsychologyEngineering ethicsMedicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent trends in medical education emphasize the importance of producing well-rounded graduates who not only possess a sufficient fund of medical knowledge but who can think clearly and deeply. Unfortunately, many medical educators struggle with what exactly it means to “think” and do not know where to begin when asked to teach “thinking.” We believe the book Making Thinking Visible, though written for K-12, will be of great interest to medical educators. The book describes different types of thinking and presents more than 20 teaching routines that can help engage learners and improve learning to think.

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)0.017
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: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.025

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.412
Teacher spread0.372 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Medical Education JournalSame topicGeography and Education MethodsFrench-language works237,207