MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754173197 · doi:10.1007/978-94-6351-047-9_7

The Art of Cultivating Clever Questions to Empower Students, Improve Teaching, and Open Up the Curriculum

2017· book-chapter· en· W2754173197 on OpenAlexaff
Samuel Leblanc

Bibliographic record

VenueSensePublishers eBooks · 2017
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMaximPedagogyDemocracyMathematics educationReflection (computer programming)SociologyPsychologyEpistemologyComputer sciencePhilosophyPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Legions of students have been taught by this maxim: “There are no stupid questions.” Yet in requiring students to write down questions built on course content, we see that some questions are indeed better than others. Such a call to student imagination, innovation, and reflection opens up the curriculum, revives educators, and aligns perfectly with critical thinking, as well as democratic education.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.710
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSensePublishers eBooksSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207