MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4383647882 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2023.070510

Research and Application of Probability and Statistics in Practical Teaching

2023· article· en· W4383647882 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Qiong Xu, Ru Li

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Assessment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSyllabusMathematics educationConnotationProbability and statisticsValue (mathematics)Teaching methodMathematical statisticsStatistics educationReform mathematicsComputer scienceMathematicsStatisticsConnected Mathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With the progress of today's society, the policies in the field of education have also been improved, including mathematics education. As the content of probability and statistics has increased significantly in mathematics textbooks, the teaching syllabus has also been constantly adjusted to adapt to the current mathematics teaching reform, and the teaching methods have also been constantly changing. Although the teaching content of probability and statistics has been gradually expanded and distributed in today's mathematics teaching, there is still a lot of room for improvement in terms of textbook content, teachers' teaching and students' learning. This paper expounds the mathematical thinking and characteristics in statistics and probability, roughly summarizes the problems and obstacles in mathematics teaching, and puts forward the teaching principles and strategies that should be paid attention to in mathematics teaching, in order to cultivate students' mathematical thinking through the teaching of probability and statistics, excavate the deeper connotation and significance contained in probability and statistics, and provide practical value for the research and application of mathematics teaching.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.127
Threshold uncertainty score0.314

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.508
Teacher spread0.459 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicEducational Technology and AssessmentFrench-language works237,207