MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910696159 · doi:10.24908/pceea.v0i0.12965

So you need to choose a textbook: An investigation into first-year engineering calculus textbooks in Canada

2018· article· en· W2910696159 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the Canadian Engineering Education Association (CEEA) · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Programs
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusCalculus (dental)Mathematics educationUploadEngineering educationComputer scienceMathematicsEngineeringEngineering managementMedicineWorld Wide Web

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The motivation for this paper was two-fold; first to examine the types of textbooks that are being used to teach calculus to undergraduate engineering students in the Canadian Universities; and, second, to assess whether these textbooks do a "good job" at teaching calculus to undergraduate engineering students.The calculus textbooks used by engineering faculties across Canada were found through an online search, either by downloading a course syllabus or through a course website. Research into these various textbooks was done through the various textbook company websites and other articles. A review of the various textbooks was provided. In addition, select calculus textbooks were selected for a more thorough review of teaching differentiation.More often universities are choosing calculus textbooks that are rooted in 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.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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