What’s important about...? Sources and evidence
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this timely article, Ailsa Fidler and Chris Russell explore the use of sources and evidence in the teaching of primary history. Referring to Ofsted’s history subject report (July 2023), Ailsa and Chris explore how sources can be used effectively in the classroom and how children’s understanding of the role of the historian can be developed.<br/>Sources are traces of the human past. Without historical sources we have no history, nothing to build a picture of the past from, nothing to help us try to answer our questions about what came before. Of course, we can never have a complete picture because we do not have access to everything that was ever made, written or more importantly, thought.<br/>Sources come in many forms (the following are not exhaustive lists):<br/>Written – diaries, census returns, trade directories, newspapers, government records, legislation, letters/telegrams/postcards.<br/>Visual – maps, plans, paintings or photographs from the period, advertisements, posters, moving film.<br/>Other – oral accounts, music, radio programmes, speeches, buildings, statues, everyday articles such as household goods or clothing, historical sites
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it