MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399441055 · doi:10.5430/ijhe.v13n3p18

Proyecto Slam : The Didactic Side of Slams

2024· article· en· W4399441055 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Teuma

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Higher Education · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicLiteracy and Educational Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReading (process)CurriculumPoint (geometry)PoetryWork (physics)PedagogySociologyMathematics educationPsychologyPolitical scienceLawLiteratureArtEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article aims to describe Proyecto Slam’s notable trajectory as well as its motivations and underlying rationale, thus serving as a starting point for the forthcoming investigation into the effectiveness of the program itself. Working principally in the city of Jaen, Andalucia, with students undergoing their first four years of obligatory secondary education (known as ESO in Spanish), Proyecto Slam is unique in the world in that it has managed to integrate itself into the curricula of the schools in which it operates, whereas all other similar projects seem to work within the parameters of extracurricular activity and therefore have a more limited reach. The fact that Proyecto Slam is made available to all the children within the particular schools in which the program is implemented, and not just those with a predisposition for reading and/or writing poetry, offers the academic community a unique opportunity to investigate up to which point the implementation of reading and writing poetry workshops can improve students’ aptitude for and attitudes about the study of language and literature. Any and all translations in this article have been carried out by me.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.425
Teacher spread0.400 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Higher EducationSame topicLiteracy and Educational PracticesFrench-language works237,207