Fortalecimiento de la argumentación mediante el desarrollo de prácticas de laboratorio en el proceso de Enseñanza-Aprendizaje de la química
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Strengthening the argumentative models used by eleventh grade students from the Bajo Canada educational institution of the Municipality of La Plata Huila in the execution of chemistry laboratory practices is the purpose of this research work. A mixed descriptive study is carried out during a semester, where the written responses of seven students chosen at random are analyzed taking into account three moments. The experience seeks to obtain information on the degree of knowledge that students have regarding the construction of arguments, the exercise seeks to establish the application of the basic components of an argument according to the related authors in a theoretical and methodological framework, and the application has as objective to identify the level of practice by the student in the argumentation and to be able to identify by contrast the degree of strengthening achieved during the process according to the argumentation category and the textual anatomy and textual philology subcategories proposed by Sandra & Sanmarti, (2000).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it