EVALUACIÓN ALTERNATIVA Y HERRAMIENTAS DE EVALUACIÓN EN LA ENSEÑANZA DEL CONCEPTO “RESPIRACIÓN”
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El presente artículo muestra las implicaciones del uso de diferentes herramientas evaluativas durante el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje del concepto respiración en seres vivos. Para esto se diseñaron dos instrumentos de evaluación; uno de ellos el cual denominamos cuestionario estructurado, el cual ofrecía a los estudiantes una serie de preguntas cerradas, las cuales podían resolverse mediante el uso de bancos de respuestas obtenidos de medios externos (internet, literatura relacionada o indagación a terceros). El segundo instrumento es la elaboración de mapas conceptuales pues al ser una herramienta no limitante, permite una interacción más flexible entre conceptos lo cual refleja una clara observación de los posibles problemas en el proceso enseñanza-aprendizaje. Como principal resultado se evidencia que la herramienta evaluativa que más aporta en este tipo de evaluación son los mapas conceptuales.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.036 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".