Transition Process of Procedural to Conceptual Understanding in Solving Mathematical Problems
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p class="apa">This article aims to describe the transition process from procedural understanding to conceptual understanding in solving mathematical problems. Subjects in this study were three students from 20 fifth grade students of SDN 01 Sumberberas Banyuwangi selected based on the results of the students’ answers. The transition process from procedural to conceptually based on three aspects: (1) identify problems in the use of an algorithm, (2) the process algorithm, (3) connect multiple concepts to transform into another shape through the symbolic/picture representations. The results showed that the majority of students (18 students out of 20 students) only meets two (2) aspects of 10 students (50%) can identify the algorithms and the use of algorithms, 8 students (40%) able to use algorithms and connect with other forms. While other students (two students from 20 students) of 10% that meet only three aspects of the transitions. Thus, understanding the procedural has an important role in developing a conceptual understanding. Because the component/aspect of procedural understanding exist on components/aspects of conceptual understanding. Thus, the association acquired several components/aspects that support the process of transition from procedural understanding to a conceptual understanding.</p>
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it