MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2239075325 · doi:10.5753/cbie.wcbie.2015.1281

Pensamento Computacional: Um estudo empírico sobre as questoes de matemática do PISA

2015· article· pt· W2239075325 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnais ... Workshops do Congresso Brasileiro de Informática na Educação · 2015
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicChemistry Education and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Bureau for International Education
KeywordsHumanitiesPhilosophyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A proposta do Pensamento Computacional é fornecer um método para solucionar problemas nas diversas áreas do conhecimento, usando conceitos computacionais. No entanto, na literatura existem poucos estudos que avaliem a relação do Pensamento Computacional e áreas como a Matemática. O presente trabalho propõe uma investigação empírica com intuito de apresentar um comparativo entre as habilidades estimuladas pelo Pensamento Computacional e as Capacidades Fundamentais da Matemática. Além disso, avaliar se há relação entre o Pensamento Computacional e os problemas de matemática do PISA. Os resultados indicam que existe relação entre as habilidades avaliadas, e que dos nove conceitos do Pensamento Computacional utilizados neste estudo seis estão presentes no conjunto de questões estudadas.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.341
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.328 · 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