MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998105523 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v9n1p199

Pedagogical Practice as Way to Find out Pedagogical Barriers

2019· article· en· W2998105523 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
M. S. Dorofeeva, А. И. Тимошенко, Ludmila Robertovna Tretyakova, Elena Vladimirovna Rogaleva

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Innovations and Challenges
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationPsychologyPedagogyCognitionSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a problem of finding out the cognitive barriers during the pedagogical practice (teaching practice) among students of training college in the article. We made an analysis of the definition “pedagogical barriers” among Russian and foreign researchers. The author’s definition of this notion is given. The importance of early finding out pedagogical barriers and working out the ways of preventive measures are presented. The methods and approaches used during the experiment are described. The results of the research on finding out pedagogical barriers are given.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.032
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.032
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.095
GPT teacher head0.448
Teacher spread0.353 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicEducational Innovations and ChallengesFrench-language works237,207