Prediction Accuracy: The Role of Feedback in 6th Graders’ Recall Predictions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">The current study focused on the role of feedback on students’ prediction accuracy (calibration). This phenomenon has been widely studied, but questions remain about how best to improve it. In the current investigation, fifty-seven students from sixth grade were randomly assigned to control and experimental groups. Thirty pictures were chosen from the curriculum and these were the same in the trials for both groups, 10 for each trial. The pilot study showed all pictures had the same difficulty level and that they were appropriate for 6<sup>th</sup> graders. During three trials, students in the experimental group received feedback about their prediction and recall. The purpose of the feedback was to assist students in monitoring their learning. Results demonstrated that students in the experimental group showed improvement in predication and prediction accuracy in trials 2 and 3. Significant differences were found among groups in trials 2 and 3, but not in trial 1. Implications and future studies are recommended.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it