MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W580036301 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v4i1.376

Boom. Tick. Bing! Writing Bodies In.

2010· article· en· W580036301 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPracticumPoetryEmbodied cognitionAmbivalenceClass (philosophy)Space (punctuation)Mathematics educationPedagogySociologyLiteratureArtVisual artsPsychologyLinguisticsPhilosophyComputer sciencePsychoanalysisArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a poetic response to the school-based practicum for beginning secondary teachers. Following their first practicum experience, in their English Method class back at the university, students pooled sensory details and memories of the week they had just spent in schools to write their own poems.The paper includes one of the poems and some thoughts about the complexity, ambivalence and embodied knowing that poetry opens up space for in reflecting on initial school experiences for beginning teachers.

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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.960

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.355 · 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