MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413615435 · doi:10.37119/ojs2025.v30i2.837

Strength-Based Pedagogies in Mathematics Education: “I Like Being Your Little Teacher”

2025· article· en· W4413615435 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Kaja Burt-Davies, Annica Andersson

Bibliographic record

Venuein education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNorges Forskningsråd
KeywordsMathematics educationPedagogyMathematicsSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article presents a strength-based, cross-age mentorship program where second and sixth-grade students in a multicultural primary school collaborate in mathematics. The sixth-grade students serve as mentors/tutors for the younger students. Drawing on positioning theory and storylines, we have focused on the mentor’s outcome, specifically how the program can help mentors position themselves as mathematics learners. The study presented is a single study based on observations and subsequent interviews with twenty students and their two teachers. The identified storylines suggest that well-structured strength-based cross-age collaboration in mathematics can create learning-focused relationships and learning contexts that enrich mentors (and mentees) both socially and academically. In this strength-based learning environment, mentors are valued for their personal strengths and mathematical proficiency, allowing them to experience a sense of achievement and pride. Keywords: strength-based pedagogies, cross-age collaboration, multicultural mathematics education, positioning theory, mentoring, classroom tensions

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)0.004
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: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.455
Teacher spread0.398 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuein educationSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207