MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2353580856

Some Enlightenment from Curriculum Standards and Teaching Evaluation of Mathematics Education in Canada

2011· article· en· W2353580856 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zeng Xian-lin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal on Mathematics Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationReform mathematicsCurriculumConnected MathematicsProcess (computing)Core-Plus Mathematics ProjectEnlightenmentComprehensionMath warsGeneralizationEveryday MathematicsPedagogyComputer scienceMathematicsPsychology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The curriculum standard of mathematics in Canadian high school,concerning the course of mathematics,problem-solving,deductive approach,proof,retrospection,tool-choosing,and the tactics,connection and expression in calculation as well as the communication of mathematics.There is a relatively low requirement for the mastery of mathematics-learning skills for students.But it emphasizes the application of teaching aids during mathematics learning,comprehension of mathematics and communication.It pays great attention to the active role of parents in the implementation and guarantee during the process of mathematics teaching and to a clear requirement for text-books editing,which stresses on the conclusion and generalization of mathematics.It makes clear for the direction of mathematics teaching evaluation.Therefore,in present high schools in China,we should renovate the process of mathematics teaching,arouse the awareness of caring more about students who have difficulties in learning mathematics.We should be rational and focus on the process of teaching so as to help students to comprehend completely.We should make use of the teaching evaluation to boost students' development and optimize teacher's educational behaviors.

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 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)0.002
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.174
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal on Mathematics EducationSame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207