MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768536560

A Potential Limitation of Embedded-Teaching for Formal Learning

2001· article· en· W2768536560 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

VenueeScholarship (California Digital Library) · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicInnovative Teaching and Learning Methods
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTUTORMathematics educationConstruct (python library)Presentation (obstetrics)Context (archaeology)Algebraic numberComputer scienceAlgebra over a fieldControl (management)MathematicsArtificial intelligencePure mathematicsProgramming language
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents a study that investigated the effects of two forms of “embedded teaching ” on students ’ formal learning of high-school-level algebra. The term “embedded teaching ” here refers to the presentation modes in which algebraic concepts, procedures, strategies, and principles are taught within the context of solving specific problems. Two forms of “embedded teaching ” (i.e., program control, and learner-control) were compared to a conventional presentation mode in which various forms of algebraic representations were taught as a coherent system before students were introduced to problems. The three instructional modes were implemented in three versions of a computer algebra tutor. Three

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.838
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.280 · 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