Using the Web for Canadian History Projects: What Will Children Find?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Three perspectives were used to evaluate existing web pages relevant to grade-six students seeking information about Canadian history. They are 1) traditional evaluation criteria, such as the reliability of information based on its currency, its durability and the authority and purpose of its source; 2) usability and design issues and finally; 3) knowledge transfer issues, such as the level of interaction and interpretation.Trois perspectives ont été utilisées pour évaluer la pertinence des pages Web existantes pour des élèves de sixième année primaire recherchant de l’information sur l’Histoire du Canada. Il s’agit : 1) des critères d’évaluation conventionnels tels que la fiabilité de l’information basée sur sa disponibilité et sa durabilité, ainsi que l’autorité et l’objectif de ses sources; 2) des questions d’utilisation et de conception et finalement, 3) des questions de transfert des connaissances, telles que le niveau d’interaction et d’interprétation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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".