MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911158522 · doi:10.1080/10899995.2018.1547034

Virtual field experiences in introductory geology: Addressing a capacity problem, but finding a pedagogical one

2019· article· en· W2911158522 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Geoscience Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGeography Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTRIPS architectureField (mathematics)Mathematics educationHistorical geologyGeologyEarth scienceSociologyComputer sciencePsychologyBiogeosciences

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent literature has demonstrated the importance of fieldwork in geology. However, as resources become scarce, field experiences are often targeted for cuts. This was the case at the University of Calgary when massive enrollments placed a tremendous burden on resources. In courses throughout, field trips and other excursions were eliminated, making it so students do not have any field experiences until their third year. In response, we have developed three virtual field experiences (VFEs) of geologically relevant locations near Calgary. A burgeoning technology, VFEs offer advantages of convenience and versatility when compared to actual field trips. Our VFEs comprise drone-captured images used to form high-resolution 2-D photomosaics and 3-D computer models. We piloted one VFE in an introductory geology course. We wanted to understand how students engaged with the models so that we could make the VFE as effective as possible. Observing student engagement over two iterations allowed us to make changes to the activity. We found that students had difficulties with the VFE’s open endedness. They also demonstrated difficulty with the relationship between observations and inferences. This is indicative of a broader issue with how geology (or science in general) is taught. Traditional instruction in geology places great emphasis on the “what” of geology as opposed to the “how.” We contend that teaching geology with more emphasis on how geology works will help students develop a better understanding of the relationship between inference and observation, enhancing their fieldwork and their understanding of science.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.130
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.269 · 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