Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are far fewer high school students enrolled in physics than in chemistry or biology courses within the province of Alberta (Alberta Education, 2007).Students are also completing the highest level math course in larger numbers than those taking physics.It appears that a fear of physics exists within students in our province; this fear seems to be related to a level of difficulty the students associate with physics.Many students either opt to not take physics or enter the course with the expectation of failure.In this study I explored the impact of physics' reputation upon a group of students who chose not to take physics.In addition, I attempted to determine whether the perception of the difficulty of high school physics is accurate.This was done by investigating the perceptions of several students who took physics.I surveyed students from one high school in a small urban school district using group interviews.The students were in grades 10 to 12 and divided into groups of Science 10, Physics 20 and Physics 30 students.The students were interviewed to gain a deeper understanding of what perceptions they have about physics and why they may have them, hoping to identify factors that affect their academic decision to take or not take physics classes.For the students interviewed, I found that the biggest influence on their decisions to take or not take physics was related to their future aspirations.The students were also heavily influenced by their perceptions of physics.The students who took physics claimed that physics was not as difficult as they had believed it to be and they reported that it was interesting, enjoyable and relevant.Those students who had chosen to not take physics perceived it would be difficult, irrelevant and boring.Therefore, a major difference of perception exists between the students who took physics and those that did not.v Table of Contents
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".