MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3017122977 · doi:10.20982/tqmp.16.2.v001

Introducing the Teaching Quantitative Methods Vignettes (TQMV)

2020· article· en· W3017122977 on OpenAlexaff
Sébastien Béland

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Quantitative Methods for Psychology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer sciencePsychologyMathematics education

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is not a secret that courses in quantitative methods are unpopular in Colleges and Universities. However, an enlighten citizen knows that understanding statistics is important to develop critical thinking in this era of fake news. The Teaching Quantitative Methods Vignettes (TQMV) is a new category of articles that publishes teaching activities in quantitative methods for students in social sciences, humanities and health sciences. The goal of these vignettes is to improve the teaching of statistics and help instructors to have access to a large pool of good pedagogical activities in open access.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.068
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.049
Threshold uncertainty score0.165

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.068
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0490.015

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 head0.596
GPT teacher head0.665
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Quantitative Methods for PsychologySame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207