MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W58062581 · doi:10.5951/mt.96.9.0612

We Have a Problem Here: 5 + 20 = 45?

2003· article· en· W58062581 on OpenAlexaff
David Richard Wagner

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematics Teacher Learning and Teaching PK-12 · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMathematics Education and Teaching Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Mathematical problemControl (management)Mathematics educationMathematicsMathematical economicsComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his discussion about the source of good mathematics problems, Kilpatrick asserts, “one person cannot give a problem to another person” (1987, p. 124). Outside the context of mathematics, two conditions are necessary for me to believe that I have a problem—having an unfulfilled need and finding no obvious way of fulfilling that need. I cannot be given a problem. I cannot even have a problem in the sense that I have control over it. Rather, my problems hold me—they make me captive. I suggest that the richness of classroom mathematical activity might be measured by the extent to which students are being captivated by mathematical problems.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.816
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.299 · 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
GenreOther

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

Citations3
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematics Teacher Learning and Teaching PK-12Same topicMathematics Education and Teaching TechniquesFrench-language works237,207