MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979747641 · doi:10.1139/cjp-2018-0819

Students’ understanding of fundamental AC signal concepts

2019· article· en· W2979747641 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Physics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Teaching Methods
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitudePhysicsSIGNAL (programming language)Phase differenceSignificant differenceMathematics educationPhase (matter)PsychologyStatisticsComputer scienceQuantum mechanicsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to determine students’ understanding of fundamental AC signal concepts, such as frequency, amplitude, and phase difference. The participants in the study were 179 students (44 female and 135 male) attending Izmir Vocational School who were enrolled in the Analog Electronics Course. The data of the study were collected by means of three open-ended questions and semi-structured interviews. In the questions, students were given a graph of an AC signal and asked to draw a signal with equal frequency but higher amplitude, a signal with equal amplitude but higher frequency, and a signal with a certain phase difference. The main aim of the interviews was to provide a deeper insight into the difficulties detected in the analysis of the questions. The data analysis showed that the students confused the concepts of frequency and amplitude and had difficulties in interpreting the signals that exhibited a phase difference.

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)0.002
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 score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score0.811

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.299 · 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