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 OpenAlexaffvenue
Paisley Worthington

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.

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)0.107
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.115
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.567

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1070.115
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0110.004
Science and technology studies0.0050.008
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0030.006
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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

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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSURG JournalSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207