Development of Critical Thinking in Doctoral Students in Education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking in university studies is the cornerstone for the development of research processes at the doctoral level; it becomes the vector of this action, whose processes in the management of learning will require that the competencies understood are developed by teachers and students, for the achievement of the goals proposed by the actors involved. This is how the research had the purpose of measuring the critical thinking of university doctorate students whose methodology was quantitative, with a population of 150 students, which allowed, in the first place, to establish the reliability and the analysis of the construct of the instrument used (Watson-Glaser test) and whose results showed a reliability of 0.77, KMO of 0.757 with a bilateral significance of 0.000. Likewise, of the five dimensions or factors of the instrument, five have a positive impact on moderate levels (Nagelkerke's pseudo-R square of 0.574) excluding inference. The descriptive analysis established that 11.3% present critical thinking at the advanced level.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it