MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2490875858 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6300-512-8_3

Integrated Threshold Concept Knowledge

2016· book-chapter· en· W2490875858 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational futures · 2016
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEvaluation of Teaching Practices
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlourishingPoint (geometry)Key (lock)Ask priceField (mathematics)EpistemologySociologyEngineering ethicsComputer scienceKnowledge managementPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial psychologyBusinessMathematicsPhilosophyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After more than a decade of flourishing international research on threshold concepts in the disciplines, we have reached a key point in the maturation of our field – a point where, as a community of scholars, we must ask ourselves questions, such as: How do we translate the rich findings of this research into a theoretically sound and actionable form, so that they are of use to instructors, students, and educational developers? And how may we do this in a way that brings unity to the approach while remaining non-prescriptive and adaptive to the various contexts in which threshold concept research and practice occur?

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.526
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0390.003

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.435
Teacher spread0.324 · 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