MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2998296754 · doi:10.1119/perc.2019.pr.bauman

Students� use of conceptual resources for understanding superposition

2020· article· en· W2998296754 on OpenAlexaff
Lauren C. Bauman, Lisa M. Goodhew, Amy D. Robertson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational Strategies and Epistemologies
Canadian institutionsQuest University Canada
FundersNational Science Foundation
KeywordsComputer scienceSuperposition principleManagement scienceEngineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, we report the preliminary results of an investigation into introductory physics students' conceptual resources for understanding the principle of superposition. We analyzed 368 written responses to a conceptual question that asked students about situations for which the principle of superposition is useful/relevant. We identified four recurring resources related to superposition: (1) localization; (2) independence; (3) quantifiability; and (4) additiveness. Our objective is to support educators by drawing attention to these resources and by suggesting how they can be taken up alongside students to enhance instruction.

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 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)0.000
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 score0.887
Threshold uncertainty score0.656

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.355
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.046 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEducational Strategies and EpistemologiesFrench-language works237,207