MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2950733872 · doi:10.1080/00220485.2019.1618764

Teaching students to extend economic models using in-class scaffolding assignments

2019· article· en· W2950733872 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Economic Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovations in Educational Methods
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSophisticationClass (philosophy)Presentation (obstetrics)Mathematics educationStrengths and weaknessesExtension (predicate logic)Computer scienceWork (physics)Group workPedagogyPsychologySociologyEngineeringArtificial intelligenceProgramming languageSocial scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The author discusses how to teach students to extend economic models using in-class scaffolding assignments, supported by discussions and workshops. Methods include discussions of a model’s strengths and weaknesses; small group, in-class assignments that provide steps toward model extension; informal presentations of the work resulting from these assignments; and large group, post-presentation discussions in which students critique and build upon each other’s work. Students then draw upon what they have learned to take one final step—to write a paper detailing a model extension. Although student model extensions do not reach a professional level of sophistication, students do extend models beyond what they know of them from textbooks and lectures. In doing so, students begin to create knowledge and to participate in economic discourse.

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)0.007
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.370
Threshold uncertainty score0.851

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.395 · 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