Thinking Process of Pseudo Construction in Mathematics Concepts
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">This article aims at studying pseudo construction of student thinking in mathematical concepts, integer number operation, algebraic forms, area concepts, and triangle concepts. 391 junior high school students from four districts of East Java Province Indonesia were taken as the subjects. Data were collected by means of distributing the main instrument and tracer instrument to the subjects respectively. Both instruments were deployed for the purpose of digging up the construction process. The construction was clustered on the basis of the pseudo contruction cases and followed with in-depth interviews to three subjects of each case. The findings show that pseudo construction was identified in four cases. The first case was associated with integer operations, operations of algebraic form, the concept of area, and the concept of triangle. They used analogy of “in debt” to construct concepts of negative number operation. In the second case, they used objects (book, pencil, and thing) to describe variables in the algebraic form operation. For the third case, students deciphered unit area (<em>m</em><sup>2</sup>) as multiplication <em>m</em> x <em>m</em>. In the fourth case, students did not pay attention to the requirements of the triangle. Although they gave a right answer to their work, their construction concept was completely false.</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 | 0.002 |
| 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