MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4384068888 · doi:10.1039/9781839167942-00266

Smartphone Applications as a Catalyst for Active Learning in Chemistry: Investigating the Ideal Gas Law

2023· book-chapter· en· W4384068888 on OpenAlexaff
Marina Milner‐Bolotin, Valery Milner

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicMobile Learning in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAuthentic learningSuiteIdeal (ethics)PhoneMultimediaComputer scienceMathematics educationChemistryPsychologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This chapter examines how interactive research-based smartphone applications can be used to engage students in hands-on chemistry learning both at school and at home. Two different smartphone applications are being discussed: the PhET (Physics Education Technology, https://phet.colorado.edu/) suite of interactive simulations and the Phyphox (Physics Phone Experiments, https://phyphox.org/) data collection and analysis smartphone application. PhET chemistry simulations let students conduct virtual experiments, while the Phyphox app allows students to collect and analyze real time data. We illustrate the pedagogical applications of these apps through an example of an ideal gas investigation. We also suggest how smartphone applications can be introduced in science teacher education to actively engage future teachers in smartphone enabled science investigations. Finally, we discuss how smartphone-based science experiments can help educators increase access to active science learning for all students and consequently reduce the educational inequality in STEM classrooms.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0210.008

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMobile Learning in EducationFrench-language works237,207