POE: Understanding Innovative Learning Places and Their Impact on Student Academic Engagement—Index 6–8 ‘Alpha’ Survey Developments
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
New evidence builds upon the Student Engagement IndexTM and Teacher Engagement IndexTM research (Scott-Webber, Konyndyk, & French, 2019; Scott-Webber, Konyndyk, French, & French, 2018; Scott-Webber, Konyndyk, French, Lembke, & Kinney, 2017) determining post-occupancy answers to, “Can we demonstrate that the design of the built environment for grades 6–8 impacts student academic engagement levels post-occupancy?” The early studies used respondents from grades 9–12. This one is from users in grades 6–8 (‘alpha’ pilot). All studies were conducted in the USA as convenience samples. Engagement performance is a high predictor of student success across multiple domains and learning/work experiences. Specifically, “Research that shows that engagement, the time and energy students devote to educationally purposeful activities, is the best single predictor of their learning and personal development” (Anonymous, NSSE, 2010, p. 2), and thus our research focus. From both the students and educators perspectives, design of the built space impacts engagement performance (p < .0001).
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it