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
Abstract Each year thousands of high school serve as Science Olympiad coaches. These teacher-coaches mentor and assist students who compete in biology, chemistry, earth science, physics, and technology events at this extra curricular academic competition. Why do serve as coaches? What are their rewards and challenges? What levels of competition and cooperation exist among students engaging in this endeavor? What is the relationship of coaching a Science Olympiad team and teaching high school science? Nine who served as coaches at a regional high school Science Olympiad in 2002 were interviewed to answer these questions. Their insights are reported here. ********** The Science Olympiad [SCIO] is international nonprofit organization devoted to improving the quality of education by generating student interest in and providing recognition for outstanding achievement in education by both students and teachers (Putz, 2002, p. CC1). According to Gerald Putz, SCIO National Director, roughly 13,500 elementary and secondary teams involving 200,000 individuals from all 50 states and Canada take part in this extra curricular academic competition each year. In New York alone, 275 high school teams with 550 high school teacher-coaches and 4000 students (grades 9-12) participated in 2002. Of this total, 25 teams involving 50 teacher-coaches and 375 high school students, with nearly equal numbers of girls and boys, took part in the regional tournament in Rochester, New York, on a Saturday in February of that year. On the day of the tournament, students in groups of two or three per school competed against their peers from other schools in 18 and engineering events. The events required students to apply their scientific content knowledge and laboratory skills during 50-minute sessions addressing such topics as bird identification, chemistry laboratory investigation, topographical map reading, and physics experimentation. They also used their engineering and technical know-how in constructing remote controlled robots, balsa wood boomilevers, catapults, energy transfer devices, and musical instruments based on precise design specifications and performance criteria. Students who finished in the first three places for each event received gold, silver, and bronze medals to recognize their accomplishments. All participants in each event earned points for their teams based on their results. The top finishing teams received trophies as well as invitations to the state level high school SCIO to compete against other regional qualifiers in March. The top two teams from the state tournament participated in the national SCIO in May. The SCIO evolved out of a concern over dwindling enrollments both in high school and college and waning student interest in fairs (Macbeth, 1977, p. 22). A SCIO and a fair are similar in that they are extracurricular competitions. They differ in that the SCIO involves collaborative group competitions on a variety of and technology events whereas a fair tends to be an individual scientific research project on a particular problem (Jones, 1991). There has been a belief among many secondary and post secondary and teacher educators that the SCIO generates student interest in (Cairns, 1984; Fletcher, 1981; McGee-Brown, Martin, Monsaas, & Stombler, 2002; Wilson, 1981). The authors of the National Science Education Standards (NRC, 1996) wrote that the SCIO enhanced scientific literacy as students display their understanding and ability in science (p. 39). In light of this published support, what can be learned about who served as coaches at a regional tournament? Goals and Methods The goal of this study was to investigate the nature of coaching a high school SCIO team. What were the beliefs and needs of high school who served as coaches? …
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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