MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804672717 · doi:10.11575/ajer.v64i1.56439

Examining the Efficacy of Inquiry-based Approaches to Education

2017· article· en· W2804672717 on OpenAlexaffabout
David Scott, Cameron W. Smith, Man-Wai Chu, Sharon Friesen

Bibliographic record

VenueUniversity of Calgary · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAffordancePedagogyOpposition (politics)Mathematics educationValue (mathematics)PsychologyContext (archaeology)Political scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Educational jurisdictions around the world have introduced curricular initiatives that emphasize the need for students to engage in inquiry-based education. This shift, has been met by significant public opposition, particularly in the Canadian context. Results from this study indicate that criticisms of inquiry-based approaches to education are largely directed at discovery learning, which has limited educational value. We note the significant affordances of guided forms of inquiry, such as problem-based learning, and approaches to inquiry aligned with the authentic education movement. Additionally, we highlight the specific instructional supports needed for processes of inquiry to promote elements, such as critical thinking skills and flexible problem solving abilities, necessary for success in a rapidly changing world.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.060
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.202
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0600.202
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.006
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.144 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUniversity of CalgarySame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207