MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305489861 · doi:10.21890/ijres.62392

How Could Mathematics Teachers Know Complexity Inquiry?

2016· article· en· W2305489861 on OpenAlexaff
Xiong Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Research in Education and Science · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicChaos, Complexity, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationFaculty developmentPsychologyPedagogyTeaching methodProfessional development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to provide a transforming way of knowing for teachers’ professional learning, this paper uses narrative to present the knowledge emerging from teachers as participants in a concept study derived from complexity science. There are three components in the narrative: what knowledge emerged from concept study; what has been changed for the emerged knowledge; and where we are going with complexity. The narrative provides not only a lived example but a framework for the action towards the transforming way of knowing for teachers’ professional learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.015
Scholarly communication0.0090.026
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.253
GPT teacher head0.483
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Research in Education and ScienceSame topicChaos, Complexity, and EducationFrench-language works237,207