MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2964684033 · doi:10.1145/3291279.3339404

BDSI

2019· article· en· W2964684033 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

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceProcess (computing)Work (physics)Data collectionIterative and incremental developmentMeasure (data warehouse)Mathematics educationKnowledge managementPsychologySoftware engineeringEngineeringMathematicsData miningStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Concept Inventory (CI) is a validated assessment to measure student conceptual understanding of a particular topic. This work presents a CI for Basic Data Structures (BDSI) and the process by which the CI was designed and validated. We discuss: 1) the collection of faculty opinions from diverse institutions on what belongs on the instrument, 2) a series of interviews with students to identify their conceptions and misconceptions of the content, 3) an iterative design process of developing draft questions, conducting interviews with students to ensure the questions on the instrument are interpreted properly, and collecting faculty feedback on the questions themselves, and 4) a statistical evaluation of final versions of the instrument to ensure its internal validity. We also provide initial results from pilot runs of the CI.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.962
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0040.001

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 head0.427
Teacher spread0.393 · 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

Quick stats

Citations68
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInnovative Teaching MethodsFrench-language works237,207