La concepción de la naturaleza de la ciencia (CNC) de un grupo de docentes inmersos en un programa de formación profesional
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este trabajo muestra cómo un grupo de docentes del área de ciencias inmersos en un programa de formación –la Maestría en Enseñanza de las Ciencias (MEC) de una universidad estatal mexicana– modificaron sus perfiles iniciales acerca de la concepción de la naturaleza de la ciencia (CNC). La información empírica, recogida en diferentes momentos de los dos años de duración de la MEC, proviene de un grupo único de 11 docentes, quienes enseñan materias científicas, principalmente, en escuelas de educación media superior. Los resultados en este primer recorte de investigación, muestran que la MEC mejora los perfiles iniciales incoherentes de la CNC del grupo de docentes, al adoptar un patrón de grupo que tiende hacia el relativismo. Se discuten las dificultades de reducir la CNC a un modelo técnico de la organización del contenido. Se aborda también una línea de interpretación que se refiere a la alfabetización científica de los docentes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".