MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911824340 · doi:10.20360/langandlit29377

An Inquiry into Adolescents’ Experiences with Cognitively Demanding Writing: Time Investment and the Importance of Authenticity’

2019· article· en· W2911824340 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Mitton‐Kükner, Heather Michael

Bibliographic record

VenueLanguage and Literacy · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicWriting and Handwriting Education
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstruct (python library)PsychologyTask (project management)MetacognitionPerceptionWriting processLiteracyPedagogyCognitive psychologyMathematics educationCognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we describe our 12-month inquiry into understanding adolescents’ experiences, as they engaged in writing that challenged them to construct knowledge by making claims grounded in evidence and reasoning.While engaged in the task of writing a research paper, participants’ perceptions of time were two-fold in that they consistently identified a lack of time and a lack of understanding about the time the research paper demanded.We argue enabling students to have more temporal control over their writing is related to fostering increased metacognition about writing as a process.

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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLanguage and LiteracySame topicWriting and Handwriting EducationFrench-language works237,207