Bibliographic record
Abstract
This section on teacher education begins with Bruce Partridge and George Greenstein asking the question What should we teach? Goals for astronomy courses . Each year, more than 250,000 North American university students study astronomy. Few of these continue in the field professionally; many will go on to be secondary schoolteachers. What sorts of learning should survey courses in astronomy encourage? Two national meetings were held in 2002 to develop a list of goals for introductory survey courses in astronomy. The list of goals presented below was arrived at by consensus involving both astronomers from leading research universities and well-known science educators. While they were intended for university astronomy courses, it may be that they would be of interest also to those teaching astronomy or related physical sciences at the secondary school level. Note their generality (they were not focused on specific content items like galaxies or Newton's Laws). Nor were they intended to be a prescribed curriculum for introductory astronomy courses. Instead the set of goals developed in these meetings emphasizes deep learning, development of general skills, and good understanding of a limited number of general scientific principles, rather than broad coverage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.615 | 0.349 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".