MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2977804128 · doi:10.1021/acs.jchemed.9b00307

United Nations Sustainable Development Goals as a Thematic Framework for an Introductory Chemistry Curriculum

2019· article· en· W2977804128 on OpenAlexafffund
Riley J. Petillion, Tamara K. Freeman, W. Stephen McNeil

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Chemical Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicChemistry and Chemical Engineering
Canadian institutionsOkanagan University CollegeUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsCurriculumSustainable developmentThematic mapCurriculum developmentEngineering ethicsChemistry educationChemistryMathematics educationThematic analysisPolitical scienceEngineering physicsSociologyEngineeringPedagogyQualitative researchPsychologyPhysicsSocial scienceGeographyQuality (philosophy)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As part of a revision to the content and delivery of first-year chemistry instruction at the University of British Columbia’s Okanagan campus, we have employed the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (UN SDGs) as a thematic framework. This framework was introduced to promote the achievement of affective learning outcomes, including a systems thinking approach to exploring the relevance of first-year chemistry content and concepts to societal and global challenges. Through this framework, sets of course concepts, which are traditionally limited in their application to isolated textbook chapters, are demonstrated, through various in-class group activities, to have collective applications to the environmental and societal systems embodied by specific SDGs. Student attitudes to this framework and its associated activities were examined via a course-end survey and in-depth semistructured interviews. Student responses were generally positive, indicating an appreciation for the relevance of course concepts to the global challenges described by the SDGs, and for many students, the SDG-framed learning activities aided in their understanding of course concepts.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.071

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations57
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Chemical EducationSame topicChemistry and Chemical EngineeringFrench-language works237,207