Introduction to the papers of TWG14: University mathematics education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research on university level mathematics education is a fast developing field as evident in the growth of the CERME University Mathematics Education (hereafter UME) Thematic Working Group. TWG14 was launched in CERME7 (Nardi, González-Martín, Gueudet, Iannone & Winsløw, 2011). After CERME8 (Nardi, Biza, González-Martín, Gueudet, & Winsløw, 2013), its leader team – in collaboration with TWG14 participants and others – worked towards a Research in Mathematics Education Special Issue on Institutional, sociocultural and discursive approaches to research in university mathematics education (Nardi, Biza, González-Martín, Gueudet & Winsløw, 2014) which focused on research that is conducted in the spirit of the following theoretical frameworks: Anthropological Theory of the Didactic, Theory of Didactic Situations, Instrumental and Documentational Approaches, Communities of Practice and Inquiry and Theory of Commognition.
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.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.140 | 0.058 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".