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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Calculus is perhaps the most widely taught and researched upper-secondary/post-secondary mathematics subject the world over. The research literature is amassing greater clarity around students’ understandings of calculus, yet calculus instruction tends to be at odds with this literature, maintaining a focus on procedural aspects of the subject. This current work explores one central procedural topic, differentiation, through the broader lens of procedural flexibility. Both students and experts calculated the derivatives to a collection of functions in multiple ways, selected their preferred method and commented on their preference. Many students demonstrated a knowledge of multiple procedures and an ability to select appropriate solutions. Experts produced a greater number of distinct solution methods, including some not found among the student responses. The primary impact of this paper is a more nuanced understanding of ‘flexibility’ as a construct, buttressed by contrasting student and expert data, especially as it concerns procedures in higher-level mathematics. These results are expected to contribute to a bridge between the research on and practice of calculus instruction.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it