MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407572080 · doi:10.52041/iase2023.701

Putting research into practice: Applying evidence-based principles to foster student learning in statistics and data science

2024· article· en· W4407572080 on OpenAlexaff
Samantha‐Jo Caetano, Bruno de Sousa, Anna Fergusson, Laura Le, Alison L. Gibbs, Bethany White, Sotirios Damouras

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsThe Scarborough HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceData scienceEvidence-based practiceStatistics educationMathematics educationStatisticsPsychologyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

How can we apply evidence from research to best foster learning in our students? Inspired by the conference theme, a panel discussion at the IASE 2023 Satellite Meeting gave insight into the practical application of research-based learning principles to the teaching of Statistics and Data Science. The discussion was guided by the eight principles described in Lovett et al. (2023). These principles are grounded in learning theory and pedagogy and backed by empirical evidence. Panellists shared illustrative examples of how the principles are enacted in their teaching and participants had the opportunity to reflect on their own strategies for supporting learning through following these principles.

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 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)0.022
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.154
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.343
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0220.154
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.775
GPT teacher head0.661
Teacher spread0.114 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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 topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207