MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385209600 · doi:10.1093/teamat/hrad005

A three-pronged lesson in differential equations in a calculus course: analytical, numerical and experimental

2023· article· en· W4385209600 on OpenAlex

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

VenueTeaching Mathematics and its Applications An International Journal of the IMA · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicExperimental Learning in Engineering
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCalculus (dental)Course (navigation)Focus (optics)Differential calculusExperiential learningDifferential (mechanical device)Computer scienceDifferential equationMathematicsApplied mathematicsMathematics educationMathematical analysisPhysicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Physical experiments in classrooms have many benefits for student learning, including increased student interest, participation and knowledge retention. While experiments are common in engineering and physics classes, they are seldom used in first-year calculus, where the focus is on solving problems analytically and, occasionally, numerically. In this paper, we detail a three-pronged lesson introducing differential equations using analytical, numerical and experimental approaches in a large first-year differential calculus course. Presenting the three approaches in succession allows students to evaluate advantages and disadvantages. The lesson incorporates software and programming and provides opportunities for active, experiential, team-based learning.

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)0.000
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.312

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.296 · 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