MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387858497 · doi:10.37034/residu.v1i3.158

Least Learned Competencies in Mathematics 8: Basis in Crafting Strategic Intervention Materials

2023· article· en· W4387858497 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
G Laña

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research and Investigation in Education · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationQuarter (Canadian coin)Intervention (counseling)Ranking (information retrieval)Strengths and weaknessesPsychologyMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This descriptive research study was conducted to determine and analyze the least learned competencies in Mathematics 8 from First Quarter to Fourth Quarter in Naguilian District, Division of La Union as basis for crafting K to 12 aligned Strategic Intervention Materials (SIMs). It also looked into the problems encountered in teaching Mathematics 8. Grade 9 learners and teachers were the respondents; the learners’ participants were selected through Slovin’s formula. In treating the gathered data mean, percentages, frequencies, and ranking were used. It found that there were eight (8) least learned competencies in all the quarters (first, second, third, and fourth) and the level of performance was fairly satisfactory. It was concluded that the least learned competencies were those that require higher order thinking skills. It was recommended that the crafted K to 12 aligned Strategic Intervention Material should be adopted by high school teachers in Naguilian District and other high school teachers in the province as an additional learning material to address the weaknesses of the learners along the identified least learned competencies in Mathematics 8.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Research and Investigation in EducationSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207