MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589992480 · doi:10.29173/slw6898

Theories Holding Promise for Supporting the Constructivist Behaviors of Inquiry

2015· article· en· W2589992480 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jami Jones, Barbara Flohr, Mimi Martin

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicFlow Experience in Various Fields
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNature versus nurtureCreativityPsychologyConstructiveExploratory researchConstructivism (international relations)PedagogyMathematics educationSocial psychologyEpistemologySociologySocial scienceProcess (computing)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problem under investigation is how to nurture the exploratory and constructive behaviors of inquiry. To this end, the research, concepts, and theories of Sugata Mitra, Jacob Getzels, and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi hold promise for developing opportunities for these pursuits. Additionally, research about the negative effects of reward informs school librarians who practice this creativity killer.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.051
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.060
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.051
Threshold uncertainty score0.267

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0510.060
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.063
Scholarly communication0.0110.018
Open science0.0030.005
Research integrity0.0020.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.050
GPT teacher head0.352
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicFlow Experience in Various FieldsFrench-language works237,207