MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3193989235 · doi:10.24036/apb.v4i1.4848

Validity of High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) Oriented Student Worksheet (LKPD) on Structure and Function of Plant Tissue Material for Class VIII Junior High School

2019· article· en· W3193989235 on OpenAlexaff
Ratna Sari Aprilia, Des M, Rahmadhani Fitri, Zulyusri Zulyusri

Bibliographic record

VenueJurnal Atrium Pendidikan Biologi · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsTellabs (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWorksheetMathematics educationClass (philosophy)Higher-order thinkingFunction (biology)CurriculumProcess (computing)EngineeringPsychologyMathematicsComputer sciencePedagogyTeaching methodArtificial intelligenceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Curriculum 2013 push student to have the high order thinking skills (HOTS). But in the SMPN 15 Padang especially in class VIII, there is no available teaching material that can improve students high order thinking skills in the learning process. Therefore, HOTS oriented LKPD has been developed in the structure and function of plant tissue material. The purpose of this research to know validity of High Order Thinking Skills (HOTS) oriented student worksheet (LKPD) on structure and function of plant tissue material for class VIII junior high school. This research is part of Plomp model that is development or prototyping phase. Data analyzed through quantitative analysis. The instrument of data collection using validation questionnaires. The product validated by 3 lecturers of biology and a natural science teacher of SMPN 15 Padang. Based on the results of the study obtained the validity of LKPD 90.96% with very valid category.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designObservational
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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJurnal Atrium Pendidikan BiologiSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207