Resolução colaborativa de problemas: resultados brasileiros no Pisa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Resumo A resolução colaborativa de problemas (RCP) é uma competência de extrema relevância na sociedade moderna e uma das mais valorizadas neste século. O Programa Internacional de Avaliação de Alunos (Pisa) foi a primeira avaliação em larga escala a incluir a resolução de problemas em sua matriz de referência. Esse estudo preliminar se restringe aos resultados publicados nos relatórios oficiais do Programa. Aqui, especificamente, discutimos esses resultados à luz da literatura de referência, bem como descrevemos o conceito de RCP no Pisa 2015. O Brasil, dentre os 52 países participantes, ocupou a 51ª posição nas habilidades relacionadas à RCP, ficando no Nível 1 da escala de desempenho. O status socioeconômico, a variação nas escolas e o gênero relacionam-se, positivamente, com o desempenho brasileiro em RCP.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.017 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".