Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current educational literature calls for a shift in educational paradigm from a system of facts and tests to a system of curiosity, innovation and entrepreneurialism. Harvard psychologist Howard Gardner defines intelligence for students today as “the ability to solve problems that one encounters in real life, the ability to generate new problems to solve and the ability to make something or offer a service that is valued in one’s culture” [2]. Engineers in the field are models of learners for life. They have blended content knowledge, skills and competencies into an intuitive engineering sense. Engineers work collaboratively with others knowing that the best possible solution will be a negotiation between perspectives, boundaries and possibilities. They are flexible in their approach to new tasks, they learn from failures and they welcome uncertainty. Engineers are able to assess a situation, identify a component or process that could be improved, gather data, develop ideas, and create something, an item, process or service that is valued. What might education learn from engineering?
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.004 |
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".