MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399847230 · doi:10.55016/ojs/ajer.v48i2.54918

Research on Reform in Mathematics Education, 1993-2000

2002· article· en· W4399847230 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAlberta Journal of Educational Research · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Research and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMathematics educationReform mathematicsEducational researchConnected MathematicsMath warsCore-Plus Mathematics ProjectPedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Proponents and opponents of reform of mathematics education all cite the research base in support of their positions. This article reports the results of a review of studies that contained empirical evidence of the effects of reform or the difficulty of implementing reform that were published between 1993 and 2000. The studies reviewed indicate that implementation of math reform contributes to student achievement, but evidence abounds of superficial implementation and barriers to enactment. There are well-documented strategies for reducing these barriers, the most promising strategies being inservice that simultaneously focuses on teachers' practice and their cognition about mathematics teaching.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.626
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0030.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.003

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 head0.228
GPT teacher head0.493
Teacher spread0.264 · 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