MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6979979849

Approaches to industrial processes in technology textbooks

2023· article· en· W6979979849 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicScience Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsEngineering Link (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProcess (computing)Work (physics)Field (mathematics)Component (thermodynamics)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study is to explore how technology textbooks can provide students with a basis for expressing knowledge about technical solutions within industrial processes.The base and the delimitation for the study is the formulation of the specific content on industrial processes that must be taught to 13 to 15-year-olds in Swedish schools pursuant to the national syllabus.Textbooks constitute an important foundation for teaching, particularly in the subject of technology, in which teachers may find the breadth of content they are expected to teach challenging.The study analyses the sections concerning industrial processes in four different technology textbooks commonly used for students in the age group 13-15.Analysis involved interpreting content in the form of text, images, assignments etc. related to aspects that are expected to characterise students' descriptions and explanations of technical solutions: understanding of technical solutions purpose and functionality, how components interact as a whole, similarities to other technical solutions and relating them to their own experiences.The results show that these aspects emerge in different ways depending on, among other things, how the area is presented.We found three different ways in which industrial processes are presented in the textbooks: A unique industrial process is described carefully and in detail, Sub-processes and methods are presented systematically and Industrial processes are described as technological systems at a general level.One interpretation is that, as a teacher, you can teach about industrial processes in these different ways and that which one you choose affects to what extent certain aspects of technical solutions are visualised for the students.

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)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.055

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.004
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.308
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.069 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueKTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)Same topicScience Education and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207