MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293154071 · doi:10.1564/174427114838782607

Learning Mathematics by Designing, Programming, and Investigating with Interactive, Dynamic Computer-based Objects

2014· article· en· W2293154071 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal for Technology in Mathematics Education · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceDynamic programmingMathematics educationHuman–computer interactionComputer graphics (images)MathematicsAlgorithm

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of their undergraduate mathematics curriculum, students at Brock University learn to create and use computer-based tools with dynamic, visual interfaces, called Exploratory Objects, developed for the purpose of conducting pure or applied mathematical investigations. A student’s Development Process Model of creating and using an Exploratory Object provides insights on the kinds of activities emerging from their creation and use. We propose to discuss Exploratory Objects by examining them, as a learning activity, across a literature review involving four educational areas: learning mathematics by use of simulation, learning mathematics by programming, learning experimental mathematics, and inquiry-based learning in science and mathematics education. Through this contextualisation, a refinement of the Development Process Model is proposed. Our results suggest that the learning activity of creating and using Exploratory Object is closely related to that of using microworlds.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.939
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.286 · 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