MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2293569677 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n2p11

Students’ Errors in Solving the Permutation and Combination Problems Based on Problem Solving Steps of Polya

2016· article· en· W2293569677 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
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

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMistakePermutation (music)Class (philosophy)Mathematics educationMathematicsDerangementComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceCombinatorics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">This article was written based on the results of a study evaluating students’ errors in problem solving of permutation and combination in terms of problem solving steps according to Polya. Twenty-five students were asked to do four problems related to permutation and combination. The research results showed that the students still did a mistake in understanding the problems related to permutation and combination, the students still made a mistake in planning problem solving related to permutation and combination, and the students still had a mistake in rechecking the problems given. Besides, there were some students who did the combination problem by using the permutation problem.</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 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)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.707

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.187
GPT teacher head0.470
Teacher spread0.283 · 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