MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7097231054

2002 Pan-Canadian Education Research Agenda Symposium

2002· article· en· W7097231054 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistics Education and Methodologies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDimension (graph theory)ICTSEducational researchInformation and Communications TechnologyMetacognitionResearch councilEducational technologyInformation technology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not represent the views of the Canadian Education Statistics Council The literature devoted to technology and education is replete with claims regarding the contribution of computer technologies to teaching and learning in elementary and secondary schools. The claims have fuelled expectations and encouraged local and provincial school jurisdictions to expend significant resources on new technologies. This review of research is a response to the call by the Canadian Education Statistics Council to prepare a paper addressing some dimension of the impact of information and communication technology (ICT) on teaching and learning in elementary, secondary, or post secondary education in Canada. We have focussed our review on two major areas: 1) the efficacy of ICTs for achievement, motivation, and metacognitive learning; and 2) the impact of ICTs on instruction in content areas in elementary and secondary schools. Mindful of the importance of contextual factors such as ethno-cultural and linguistic diversity, we have attempted to focus on Canadian research. Nevertheless, because the material devoted to Canada is scarce, we have augmented our review with international research on these topics. It was our intention to identify claims that would enable those responsible for the formation or implementation of policy to make informed decisions. Few, if any, claims were sufficiently well researched or well evidenced to provide direction for policy. We conclude our review with a discussion of policy, the impact of research in the classroom, and suggestions of further research.

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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0300.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.577
GPT teacher head0.520
Teacher spread0.057 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicStatistics Education and MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207