MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2970298539 · doi:10.5430/jct.v8n3p122

The Curriculum and Community Enterprise for Restoration Science S.T.E.M. + C Professional Learning Model: Expansion and Enhancement

2019· article· en· W2970298539 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lauren Birney, D. McNamara

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum and Teaching · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThrivingWorkforceCurriculumProfessional developmentProfessional learning communityPedagogyValue (mathematics)Learning communitySociologyPublic relationsPsychologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Professional Development in the field of education has undergone several shifts in focus. Currently, teacher contentknowledge and the ability to disseminate this knowledge is the focus in professional learning communities. Theimportance of creating a thriving STEM workforce in the United States has been promoted for the last decade.Studies have shown that capturing students’ interest must occur before they enter high school, ideally in the middleschool years (Blotnicky, Franz-Odendaal, French, & Phillip, 2018). Teachers are the conduits for encouragingstudents to explore STEM-related career options. Student engagement is piqued when there is a strong real-worldconnection to the content being presented. Students find relevance through actual experience with the concepts andskills incorporated in projects that are community-based. The Curriculum and Community Enterprise for RestorationScience STEM + C Project is the marriage of these two components. The professional development of the New YorkCity middle school teachers involved in the CCERS STEM +C Project furnishes these educators with the tools tostimulate students’ interest by tackling a problem in their local community using STEM-related content andcomputational thinking. The hope is that authenticity of the learning experience will entice all students, especiallythose under-represented populations in the STEM workforce, to consider this as a viable career pathway. Theanalysis of this project is intended to highlight the significant inroads made and the value of self-reflection andre-design in strengthening the work as it continues.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.723
Threshold uncertainty score0.703

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.313
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum and TeachingSame topicGenetics, Bioinformatics, and Biomedical ResearchFrench-language works237,207