MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6977610428 · doi:10.7282/00000318

The mismeasurement of STEM: evidence from college course classifications

2023· article· en· W6977610428 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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueView · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Research Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAlfred P. Sloan FoundationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsMeaning (existential)Component (thermodynamics)Element (criminal law)Process (computing)Block (permutation group theory)Life course approach

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

STEM acronymically refers to four areas of inquiry – Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics. But as its use has become ubiquitous, STEM has taken on social and political meaning far beyond the sum of its component parts. In this paper, we take a first step in clarifying the analytic categories of STEM in education. This, we propose, is a necessary first building block for STEM analysis – to understand what constitutes STEM coursework, the constituent element of a STEM education. We first review the STEM definitional problems we have identified in the process of examining two sets of NCES nationally-representative data, provide analysis of the extent of potential mismeasurement, and estimates of impact. We then outline an approach to resolving the mismeasurement problems in nationally-representative postsecondary student surveys.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.757
Threshold uncertainty score0.593

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.271
GPT teacher head0.474
Teacher spread0.203 · 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