MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604929791 · doi:10.18260/p.24033

Evaluation of RepRap 3D Printer Workshops in K-12 STEM

2015· preprint· en· W2604929791 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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicBiomedical and Engineering Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersQueen's UniversityAir Force Research LaboratoryMichigan Technological University
KeywordsNext Generation Science StandardsProcess (computing)Computer scienceEngineering design process3d printerSoftware engineeringSoftware3D printingEngineering managementMathematics educationEngineeringScience educationMechanical engineeringProgramming languageMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As facilitators of 3D printer workshops, the authors developed a survey to gage how the printers are actually being used and whether they support the Next Generation Science Standards (NGSS) requirements, especially in regard to engineering design. The survey response rate was 52% of 68 total participants with the majority conveying that 3D printers do facilitate student understanding of the engineering design process and that the workshops empowered them and their students to tackle projects previously perceived as beyond their skill level. Insufficient preparation for troubleshooting hardware and software issues was listed as the greatest barrier to fully realizing the technology's potential in the classroom. Also highlighted was a lack of resources for development of meaningful lesson plans using this nascent technology.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.275
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.220 · 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

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicBiomedical and Engineering EducationFrench-language works237,207