MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2274728932 · doi:10.4324/9780203763230-23

A longitudinal study of the effects of undergraduate education on reasoning

2013· book-chapter· en· W2274728932 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology Press eBooks · 2013
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Does an undergraduate education improve reasoning about everyday-life problems? Do some forms of undergraduate training enhance certain types of reasoning more than others? These issues have not been addressed in a methodologically rigorous manner (Nickerson, Perkins, & Smith, 1985). We consequently have little knowledge of whether reasoning can be improved by instruction, yet this question has long been regarded as central to theories of cognitive development.

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)0.006
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.379
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychology Press eBooksSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207