MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4240023922 · doi:10.18260/1-2--35059

Play-Doh and Pendulums: Making Mass Moment of Inertia Fun

2020· article· en· W4240023922 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venue2020 ASEE Virtual Annual Conference Content Access Proceedings · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPacific Northwest National LaboratoryDirectorate for STEM EducationFulbright Canada
KeywordsMoment of inertiaClass (philosophy)Mathematics educationStaticsMotion (physics)CuriosityMoment (physics)ConfusionComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligencePhysicsSocial psychologyClassical mechanics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Statics is commonly the first engineering class students take. The version of statics taught at this university ends with a final lecture on mass moment of inertia. This is a segue to dynamics and strength of materials, two classes the students take the following semester. Through the years, students have noted on end of the semester course evaluations mass moment of inertia is a topic of confusion. The goal of this study is to determine if two hands-on activities demonstrating the concept of mass moment of inertia would improve the student's understanding of the topics. Three classes (two control classes, one experimental class) of statics students completed the study. The experimental class completed the hands-on activities and the control class continued with the general lecture. For the first activity teams of students were provided a simple pendulum. Students added objects of various masses and shapes to the rod of the pendulum. Students made observations about the change in swinging motion as the objects changed. The second activity used Play-Doh to help the students visualize how to use both shell and disk elements for integrating. The control students learned the material in a traditional lecture setting. The next class, all students completed a four-question concept quiz to determine their understanding of mass moment of inertia. A t-test was used to compare groups. Additionally, the experimental class completed a survey to assess learning objectives related to curiosity and making connections. There was no significant difference in scores between the two groups, suggesting the hands-on activity did not increase learning. The pendulum activity was more well received than the Play-Doh activity by the students. Although there was no difference, engagement was improved and no additional time was necessary. In the future, all sections of statics will implement the pendulum activity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.207 · 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