MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2257760525 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v61i2.56047

Opportunities for Learning-based Conversations in High School Mathematics

2016· article· en· W2257760525 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
P. Janelle McFeetors

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsSocial connectednessConversationInterpersonal communicationMathematics educationCurriculumSocial constructivismPsychologyPedagogyCooperative learningConstructivist teaching methodsTeaching methodSocial psychologyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Conversations as moments for interpersonal and intimate turning round of ideas for the purpose of growth are well-defined within curriculum inquiry. Interactions among grade 12 students in this study demonstrate the possibility of learning to learn mathematics through conversation. Attending to opportunities for learning-based conversations, constructivist grounded theory supported developing a Model of Providing Opportunities for Learning-based Conversations. Four features of preparation, presence, mode, and pacing represent a space where students could improve their learning through connectedness among conversational moments. Understanding how conversational opportunities were offered could empower others to engage in learning-based conversations with their students.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.306
GPT teacher head0.504
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAlberta Journal of Educational ResearchSame topicInnovative Teaching and Learning MethodsFrench-language works237,207