MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003771529 · doi:10.21083/surg.v11i0.5189

Development and validation of a critical thinking framework

2019· article· en· W3003771529 on OpenAlex
Paisley Worthington

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSURG Journal · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical thinkingComputer scienceOrder (exchange)Medical educationPsychologyMathematics educationMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Critical thinking (CT) is essential in many higher-order thinking skills and should be enhanced by higher education programs. The Model of Integrated Thinking Skills (MITS) was developed to help students developing CT, assist educators teaching CT, and satisfy the following three criteria: 1) completely and objectively describe CT, 2) distinguish CT from other skills, and 3) be used by all disciplines. A validation survey determined how MITS is perceived with respect to the three criteria. Most participants perceived that MITS meets the three criteria, suggesting that MITS can assist student development of CT.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.246
Threshold uncertainty score0.907

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.324 · 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