MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4280648489 · doi:10.1080/14794802.2021.2020155

Prospective teachers’ responses to students’ dialogue on fractions: attribute substitution and heuristic approaches

2022· article· en· W4280648489 on OpenAlex
Anna Marie Bergman, Keith Gallagher, Rina Zazkis

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Mathematics Education · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHeuristicsRepresentativeness heuristicVariety (cybernetics)Mathematics educationClass (philosophy)Substitution (logic)HeuristicScripting languageTask (project management)Fraction (chemistry)Computer sciencePsychologyPedagogyArtificial intelligenceSocial psychologyChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Knowing how best to respond to students’ mathematical inquiries is an important skill for all teachers to develop. A class of pre-service teachers (PSTs) was presented with a scripting task in which a student conjectured that 1/6.5 was “exactly in between” fractions 1/6 and 1/7. However, instead of addressing the student’s inquiry directly, many of the PST’s responses contained a variety of explanations for more general information about fractions and their various representations. We offer a classification of the responses using the ideas of attribute substitution along with the availability and representativeness heuristics.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.278
GPT teacher head0.498
Teacher spread0.219 · 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