MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2295604025 · doi:10.13034/jsst.v8i1.51

ENHANCING SCIENTIFIC LITERACY: A RESOURCE FOR TEACHERS

2015· article· en· W2295604025 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.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Science and Technology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScientific literacyGRASPMathematics educationCurriculumScience educationEngineering ethicsPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The standard science curriculum is meant to familiarize students with basic concepts in biology, chemistry, and physics. We do not dispute the necessity of this – indeed, a strong grasp of the fundamentals will facilitate the understanding of intermediate and advanced topics later on. Unfortunately, the evaluative approaches in these courses often misinform students of what it means to be a scientist. Students, especially those interested in biology, may be tempted to correlate scientific potential with the ability to retain and recall information for an exam. But that’s not science. As a professor once said at a first-year biology seminar, “We do a good job of teaching you the ‘what’. But we gloss over the ‘how’and the ‘why’.”

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)0.003
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.466
Threshold uncertainty score0.510

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.342
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