MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2343975441 · doi:10.47678/cjhe.v46i1.184671

Math Matters: Comparison of the Mathematics Requirements for Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science Degrees in Canada

2016· article· en· W2343975441 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Higher Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Programs
Canadian institutionsGeorge Brown College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBachelorMathematics educationThe artsHigher educationConnected MathematicsCore-Plus Mathematics ProjectLiberal arts educationMath warsPedagogyMathematicsSociologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Education matters. Every year, more students are pursuing postsecondary education. In fact, during the 2012–2013 academic year, over two million students were studying in Canadian postsecondary institutions, making it even more important to ensure that our students are getting the education and training they need to succeed. Notably, it is not uncommon for university students to struggle with mathematics or even to say, “I’m bad at math.” Yet, at the heart of mathematics are critical thinking and careful questioning—skills needed in most jobs. In this paper, I feature a study exploring mathematics requirements at Canadian postsecondary institutions. Specifically, the study examines mathematics requirements for general Bachelor of Arts and Bachelor of Science degrees. The goal of the study is to offer potential suggestions to improve more students’ mathematical abilities and better prepare them for future endeavours.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.282
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.109
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.260 · 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