MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3095406138 · doi:10.5539/hes.v10n4p54

A Systematic Review of Technological Impact on Math Literacy in the Postsecondary Classrooms

2020· review· en· W3095406138 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher Education Studies · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Programs
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtant taxonMathematics educationHigher educationLiteracyPostsecondary educationKnowledge levelTechnological literacyPsychologySystematic reviewEducational technologyPedagogyPolitical scienceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The purpose of this systematic review was to evaluate contemporary literature related to the impact of technology on student success for postsecondary mathematics courses. The aim of this review was to provide a comprehensive understanding of the extant literature concerning’s student success in mathematics for higher-education students. A series of seven databases were accessed across the past five years, which resulted in fourteen key studies. The findings of this study demonstrate the current knowledge and recommendations for future researchers. Technology was elucidated as a meaningful approach for increasing student success, course grades, and retention. However, a critical need for future empirical assessments was elucidated.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.415
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.343 · 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