MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7014654523

Proceedings of the ATEE Winter Conference ‘Science and mathematics education in the 21st century’

2019· other· en· W7014654523 on OpenAlexfundno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueRepositóriUM (Universidade do Minho) · 2019
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCentro de Matemática Universidade do PortoFundação para a Ciência e a TecnologiaUniversidade do MinhoMinistério da Ciência, Tecnologia e Ensino SuperiorCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorInternational Council for Canadian Studies
KeywordsFilter (signal processing)Work (physics)Government (linguistics)Context (archaeology)Subject (documents)Limiting
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

[Excerpt] Introduction: The University of Minho, Braga, Portugal, hosted the 2019 Winter Conference of the
\nAssociation for Teacher Education in Europe (ATEE), which took place from 15th to 17th
\nApril.
\nThe ATEE Winter conference is one of the three ATEE conferences which are organised
\nevery year, the others being the Spring conference and the Annual conference. The Winter
\nconference is usually organized by one (or more) of the several ATEE Research and
\nDevelopment Communities (RDCs). This Conference was organized by the RDC on Science
\nand Mathematics Education, which is one of the longest-standing and most active RDCs.
\nThe Conference focused on Science and Mathematics Education in the 21st Century. It is
\nfully accepted that, nowadays, Science and Mathematics Education is an area of interest to
\npolicy-makers worldwide. The area is relevant not only for the ongoing scientific and
\ntechnological development of modern, globalized and digital societies, but also for citizenship
\neducation and the sustainability of the Planet. Moreover, it contributes to the full development
\nof the individual learner. Science and Mathematics teachers, teacher educators and researchers
\ncan therefore help to make a difference beyond the classroom.
\nHowever, Science and Mathematics Education is under pressure. It has been unable to
\ndevelop good levels of literacy and numeracy, to lead enough youngsters to engage in science
\nand technology careers, and to overcome many people’s dislike and even fear of the subjects.
\nThus, the Conference aimed at promoting forward-looking approaches that combine
\nengagement and enjoyment with effectiveness in developing knowledge and skills, and hence
\nfostering ways of overcoming the challenges that the area has been facing. The Conference
\nwas a forum to enhance deep and multicultural discussions on issues like: innovative
\napproaches to teaching science and mathematics; technologically enhanced science and
\nmathematics education; science and mathematics education and the STEM agenda; science and
\nmathematics education in multicultural and inclusive schools; science and mathematics teacher
\neducation in a changing world; and 21st century assessment in science and mathematics
\neducation.
\nTwo Keynotes addressed and elaborated on the conference theme. A Panel offered an
\nopportunity for getting some insight into ways forward with regard to the challenges that
\nscience and mathematics education face in the present century. Two Plenary presentations
\nhighlighted European and Portuguese policies for Science and Mathematics Education.
\nOver seventy papers and posters were presented at the Conference. The abstracts of the
\npaper and poster proposals were blind refereed by at least two members of the Conference
\nAcademic Committee and many of them were reviewed and improved by their author(s) before
\nbeing accepted. Altogether, they offered a rich and multifaceted picture of the Conference
\ntheme.
\nTwenty-one full papers (fourteen related to paper presentations, and seven to poster
\npresentations) were submitted and fifteen (ten related to paper presentations and five to poster
\npresentations) were accepted for inclusion in the Proceedings. It should be noted that, even
\nthough full papers were submitted to a double peer review process, the content and ideas
\nconveyed by them as well as the language used are the authors’ own responsibility.
\nThe organisers of the Proceedings would like to express their gratitude to the Conference
\nAcademic and Organising committees and to all the people, institutions and organisations that,
\nin various ways, sponsored the Conference. However, special thanks are due to ATEE and to
\nthe RDC on Science and Mathematics Education for trusting the conference organizers, and to
\nthe University of Minho for hosting and supporting the Conference. [...]

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.358
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRepositóriUM (Universidade do Minho)French-language works237,207