Bibliographic record
Abstract
Syftet med denna kunskapsöversikt är att undersöka vad forskning säger om vilka effekterkooperativt lärande kan ha på SO-undervisning i skolan. Vi har identifierat relevant forskning iolika databaser med hjälp av ämnesrelaterade sökord. Detta har resulterat i olika vetenskapligaartiklar, avhandlingar och studier som berör vårt område. Detta har sedan sammanställts för attkunna klarlägga effekterna i kooperativa arbetsmetoder. Effekterna har visat sig vara tydligtpositiva för användandet av kooperativt lärande både på individ- och gruppnivå.Samarbetsaspekten inom metoden har klara fördelar för elevernas sociala förmåga ochansvarstagande. Det kooperativa lärandet är något som alla elever gynnas av, oavsettkunskapsnivå. Metoden ställer stora krav på läraren vid applicering av arbetssättet då det krävsen viss kompetens och kunskap i genomförandet för att få den önskade effekten och resultatet.
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 | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.248 | 0.120 |
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".