MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2984823549 · doi:10.5897/err.9000063

Behaviour assessment in ontario mathematics classrooms

2006· review· en· W2984823549 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.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
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

VenueEducational Research Review · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationAcademic achievementCurriculumPsychologyAchievement testPedagogyStandardized test

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curriculum reform in Ontario secondary schools proposed that the assessment of student achievement be separated into academic achievement and non-academic achievement or the behaviours that can influence academic achievement. The purpose of this study was to explore teachers’ assessment practices of non-academic achievement in Ontario’s grade 9 Academic and Applied mathematics programs. A questionnaire was distributed to grade 9 mathematics teachers attending a provincial mathematics conference. Analysis revealed that teachers were not engaging in this area of assessment as much as they felt they should and that the assessment of homework, in particular, was still being incorporated into a student’s academic score.    Key words: Assessment, mathematics, learning skills, learning behaviors/behaviours

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.468
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0780.007

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 head0.571
GPT teacher head0.628
Teacher spread0.057 · 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