MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401612652 · doi:10.5753/rbie.2024.3213

Efeito da promoção do pensamento computacional nas habilidades do século XXI: uma revisão sistemática da literatura

2024· article· pt· W4401612652 on OpenAlexaff
Leandro Santos da Cruz, Beatriz Santana, Roberto A. Bittencourt, Aurélio Rocha Barreto, Kevin Cerqueira Gomes, José Amâncio Macedo Santos

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista Brasileira de Informática na Educação · 2024
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldComputer Science
TopicTeaching and Learning Programming
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPsychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A promoção do pensamento computacional no contexto escolar tem sido incentivada e pesquisada em todo o mundo como forma de potencializar diversas habilidades humanas. Algumas destas habilidades, denominadas Habilidades do Século XXI, são consideradas fundamentais para os dias atuais, mas ainda não são tão bem desenvolvidas dentro do ambiente escolar. Levando em conta que o pensamento computacional é visto como um possível propulsor dessas habilidades, esta pesquisa reúne e sintetiza estudos primários que investigam o efeito de intervenções aplicando o pensamento computacional sobre as habilidades do século XXI. Utilizamos a metodologia de revisão sistemática da literatura e, por meio dela, identificamos 57 estudos primários. Como resultado de nossa análise, encontramos evidências de resultados positivos da promoção do pensamento computacional em relação ao desenvolvimento das seguintes habilidades do século 21: aprender a aprender, colaboração, comunicação, criatividade, habilidades sociais, resolução de problemas, proficiência em TIC, inovação, pensamento crítico e trabalho em equipe.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.046
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.048

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.046
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.005
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.002

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.286 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista Brasileira de Informática na EducaçãoSame topicTeaching and Learning ProgrammingFrench-language works237,207