MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3153139217 · doi:10.1007/s10649-021-10042-3

Exploring Israeli high school graduates’ explanations for the spread of the coronavirus

2021· article· en· W3153139217 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Sigal-Hava Rotem, Michal Ayalon

Bibliographic record

VenueEducational Studies in Mathematics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAzrieli Foundation
KeywordsMathematics educationContext (archaeology)CurriculumRecursion (computer science)MathematicsSection (typography)PhenomenonPsychologyComputer sciencePedagogyEpistemologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to explore Israeli high school graduates' mathematical explanations for the spread of the coronavirus, given that the mathematics required to do so was part of their school curriculum. An online questionnaire consisting of two sections provided a variety of potential framings for explaining the phenomenon. The first section invited the participants to explain the spread of the coronavirus in terms of their school majors in general, with no specific reference to mathematics. The second section asked explicitly to explain the mathematical context underlying the phenomenon. In this section, the participants were asked to discuss the Prime Minister's speech given in the media a few weeks earlier, in which he described the spread of the coronavirus as a geometric series. Data analysis of 87 participants' responses to the questionnaire revealed 11 different mathematical ideas used to explain the spread of the coronavirus. These ideas included are as follows: doubling, sequence, exponential growth, using powers, tree diagram, recursion, fast-growing rate with covariation, probability, parabola and quadratic function, acceleration, and factorial. It was also found that the second section of the questionnaire elicited a wider range of mathematical ideas than the first one. We suggest possible explanations for the emergence of the mathematical ideas, which seem to reflect the graduates' intuitive knowledge, influenced not only by their mathematics track level but also by their chosen high school majors. Possible implications are discussed.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.747
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEducational Studies in MathematicsSame topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207