A comparison of mathematics questions in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of synthesized taxonomy
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
The present study offers a comparative analysis of mathematics questions placed in Turkish and Canadian school textbooks in terms of cognitive process and knowledge dimension as well as the question types. In order to get the required data, eight textbooks were analyzed respectively. Document analysis was conducted to collect the data from these textbooks. In order to compare the differences and similarities between the questions found in these textbooks as well as their levels of cognitive learning, these questions were analyzed and classified according to the types of cognitive processes and knowledge dimensions they address. Mathematics questions existing in Turkish and Canadian textbooks showed a similar tendency in terms of cognitive learning domain. However, compared to the Turkish textbooks, it was found that the questions provided in the Canadian textbooks contained more constructed response questions that required higher-order cognitive abilities. It is recommended that the number of higher order thinking questions should be increased in accordance with international examinations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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