Teach different: The <scp>CREATE</scp> pedagogy for ecology and evolution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, teaching has changed and innovated profoundly in the last 3 years. With novel and more seamless opportunities to use technology and more actively teach visually online or in-person and to engage in inclusive dialogue within and between groups, we can teach very differently now. An innovation proposed a number of years ago and revisited anew in a recent and novel application to ecology and evolution course offerings, and the CREATE pedagogy or Consider, Read, Elucidate the hypothesis or purpose, Analyze and interpret data or evidence, and Think of the next Experiment is an inspiring framework for unique student work and teaching. CREATE proposes that students engage in active reading through specific exercises that are both creative and heavily anchored in critical thinking when working with publications. Here, the palette of CREATE exercises is expanded further for ecology and evolution and affirms that this approach to student engagement with literature can be highly effective in many courses. Furthermore, the application of this pedagogy dramatically influences and likely enhances how one teaches in a lecture setting as an educator making the content in all modalities more engaging and active.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".