MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2584719499 · doi:10.5642/jhummath.201701.06

Struggles and Growth in Mathematics Education: Reflections by Three Generations of Mathematicians On The Creation of the Computer Game E-Brock Bugs

2017· article· en· W2584719499 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

VenueJournal of Humanistic Mathematics · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Games and Gamification
Canadian institutionsBrock UniversityConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationObject (grammar)Process (computing)Probabilistic logicComputer scienceMathematicsProgramming languageArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the Fall of 2013 our team of three different generations of mathematicians launched the free, online E-Brock Bugs© mathematics computer game [5] which we developed from an original probabilistic board game, Brock Bugs, and its digital learning object version. We constructed E-Brock Bugs using Devlin’s [9] mathematics computer game design principles for games that prompt players’ development of mathematical thinking. As we created E-Brock Bugs we found it necessary to go through an evolving cyclic process of design, implementation, and analysis. In this paper we reflect upon the main struggles we faced in this process and the unexpected personal growth that ensued in terms of our views and beliefs as mathematics educators.

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)0.000
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 score0.106
Threshold uncertainty score0.345

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.302 · 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