OPENCHEME: OPEN EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES FOR MATERIAL AND ENERGY BALANCES
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
A survey of student opinions around open educational resources, with a focus on open textbooks, was undertaken in a second year material and energy balances course. Roughly one third of the class of 200 students participated in a voluntary online survey. One sixth of students reported having no easy access to a textbook. Students believed that free online resources and a low-cost online textbook would significantly improve their learning. Students were generally in favour, although not as strongly, of contributing to these free online resources. When asked which resources would be most valuable to improve their learning, students most often called for sample problems and solutions as well as videos of problem solutions or concept explanations. A search was then undertaken to find open educational resources that could be used to meet student requests. This search was successful in finding a variety of appropriate resources that could be adopted and built upon to meet student requests as well as finding a gap in terms of sample problems and solutions for students to practice applying their knowledge.
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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 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