Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this report is to explore an analysis of discussionsuamong groups of elementary school childrenvof a-^f:uial problem*. The intent of the research is to contribute to the advancement of methods for program and student assessment, particularly toward 46als.not usually evaluated by traditional testing programs. The analysis method used is an adaptation of schema:theory set against a background of recent research on the solving of ill-structured problems. The major, contribution of this study is in operationalizing the imposition of a schema framework on protocol data. The particular data.that.form 91e example Onalyzed come from an.ongoingcurriculum. project comparing methods of teaching thinking.skills in'the classroom. Subjects were.3rd and 6th graders in 18. c,asses.at 8 rural elementary schools in 3 school board 'jurisdictions in southwestern Ontario. Groups of five students each were taken from class and,asked-to discuis for up minutes a potentially iniquitous family situation involving allowances and household 'chores and what might be done about the problem; 76 discussions * Were recorded.. The
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 | 0.012 | 0.070 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 0.004 |
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".