MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2759695899 · doi:10.29173/slw6918

The Potential of Graphic Nonfiction for Teaching and Learning Earth Science

2017· article· en· W2759695899 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Barbara J. Guzzetti, Marca Mardis

Bibliographic record

VenueSchool Libraries Worldwide · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicDigital Storytelling and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceMathematics educationStyle (visual arts)Graphic designTeaching methodMultimediaVisual artsPsychologyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our comparative analysis demonstrates the utility of graphic nonfiction for teaching and learning scientific concepts. This study supports including graphic nonfiction along with other types of trade books as a supplement to textbooks in a multiple-text approach that allows for constructing knowledge through a cross-text comparison. Graphic nonfiction, through its visuals and conversational style, can assist in deepening understandings of content concepts and serve as an appropriate resource for science instruction, research, and enrichment.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.988

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.315 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSchool Libraries WorldwideSame topicDigital Storytelling and EducationFrench-language works237,207