MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898498150 · doi:10.18260/1-2--31013

Student performance on drawing Free Body Diagrams and the effect on Problem Solving

2020· article· en· W2898498150 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey A. Davis, Shelley Lorimer

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsMacEwan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRubricDiagramRigid bodyComputer scienceQuality (philosophy)Engineering drawingCalculus (dental)MathematicsPhysicsStatisticsClassical mechanicsEngineeringMathematics educationOrthodontics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Using data involving free-body diagrams on final exams from a first year Mechanics I course, a broadly defined rubric was created which assesses free body diagrams in six separate categories: overall quality, forces/moments, body, axes, dimensions, and resulting equations. Data from 238 free-body diagrams and equilibrium equations were then assessed. Results of the study found that 45% of the equilibrium equations had errors in them of which 67% of those errors were a direct result of errors from the free-body diagrams. Quantitative data on frequency and types of errors found in students’ free-body diagrams are provided and discussed.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.345
Threshold uncertainty score0.658

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207