La formulación de problemas integrada en un proceso de estudio sobre la construcción de sólidos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este estudio, desarrollado en el marco de la Teoría Antropológica de lo Didáctico, presentamos y discutimos el potencial que tienen los Recorridos de Estudio e Investigación como medio didáctico de una modalidad de estudio que, regida por el paradigma de la modelización matemática, favorece la integración de la formulación de problemas en la actividad matemática de los estudiantes globalmente considerada. Trabajando con alumnos de tercer curso de Educación Secundaria Obligatoria, estudiamos el problema espacial del diseño de envases dentro del ámbito de la determinación y construcción de sólidos geométricos. Analizamos el papel determinante que han tenido los mapas de cuestiones y respuestas, elaborados por los estudiantes, como evidencias del planteamiento de nuevos problemas y mostramos algunas restricciones institucionales que dificultan la implantación de esta nueva modalidad de estudio.
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 | 0.011 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.002 |
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.
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".