BZPEERReading, trust and collaboration for research
Menu

Discover

GraphFollow connections around a paper, topic or saved view.

Workspaces

HomePick up where your research flow left off.InboxHandle requests, replies and notifications from one place.CollectionsCurate reading lists, evidence sets and shareable dossiers.ResearchSee your private provenance graph, trail and imports.CollaborationMove from discovery into focused discussion rooms.PublishDraft, preview and publish full-text research articles.

Network

ExpertsFind specialists worth following or asking for help.CommunitiesJoin research circles organized around shared work.PartnersSee external organizations active around the same topics.

Opportunities

ListingsBrowse roles, calls and collaborations with clearer fit signals.

Account

Log inReturn to your reading and collaboration workspace.Create accountStart saving work, following people and joining teams.
Log inCreate account

Researcher profile

David J. Webb

David J. Webb contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate
math.LOphysics.ed-ph

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 17 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
4works
0followers
2topics
3close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

4 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

On New Notions of Algorithmic Dimension, Immunity, and Medvedev Degree

We prove various results connected together by the common thread of computability theory. First, we investigate a new notion of algorithmic dimension, the inescapable dimension, which lies between the effective Hausdorff and packing dimensions. We also study its generalizations, obtaining an embedding of the Turing degrees into notions of dimension. We then investigate a new notion of computability theoretic immunity that arose in the course of the previous study, that of a set of natural numbers with no co-enumerable subsets. We demonstrate how this notion of $Π^0_1$-immunity is connected to other immunity notions, and construct $Π^0_1$-immune reals throughout the high/low and Ershov hierarchies. We also study those degrees that cannot compute or cannot co-enumerate a $Π^0_1$-immune set. Finally, we discuss a recently discovered truth-table reduction for transforming a Kolmogorov--Loveland random input into a Martin-Löf random output by exploiting the fact that at least one half of such a KL-random is itself ML-random. We show that there is no better algorithm relying on this fact, i.e., there is no positive, linear, or bounded truth-table reduction which does this. We also generalize these results to the problem of outputting randomness from infinitely many inputs, only some of which are random.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Percent Grade Scale Amplifies Racial/Ethnic Inequities in Introductory Physics

In previous work we analyzed databases for 95 classes to show that the percent grade scale was correlated with a much higher student fail rate than the 4.0 grade scale. This paper builds on this work and investigates equity gaps occurring under both scales. By employing a "Course Deficit Model" we attribute the responsibility for closing the gaps to those who are responsible for the policies that guide the course. When comparing course grades in classes graded using the percent scale with those in courses graded using the 4.0 scale, we find that students identifying as belonging to racial or ethnic minorities underrepresented in physics suffer a grade penalty under both grade scales but suffer an extra penalty under percent scale graded courses. We then use the fraction of A grades each student earns on individual exam items as a proxy for the instructor's perception of each student's understanding of the course material to control for student understanding and find that the extra grade penalty students from groups underrepresented in physics students suffer under percent scale grading is independent of the student's understanding of physics. When we control for more student level variables to determine the source of the grade scale dependent penalty, we find that it is primarily the low F grades (partial credit scores) on exam problems that are the source of these inequities. We present an argument that switching from percent scale grading to a 4.0 grade scale (or similar grades scale) could reduce equity gaps by 20-25\% without making any other course changes or controlling for any incoming differences between students.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2022arXiv

Strong Medvedev reducibilities and the KL-randomness problem

While it is not known whether each real that is Kolmogorov-Loveland random is Martin-Löf random, i.e., whether $\mathrm{KLR}\subseteq\mathrm{MLR}$, Kjos-Hanssen and Webb (2021) showed that $\mathrm{MLR}$ is truth-table Medvedev reducible ($\le_{s,tt}$) to $\mathrm{KLR}$. They did this by studying a natural class Either(MLR) and showing that $\mathrm{MLR}\le_{s,tt}\mathrm{Either(MLR)}\supseteq\mathrm{KLR}$. We show that Degtev's stronger reducibilities (positive and linear) do not suffice for the reduction of MLR to Either(MLR), and some related results.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access
preprint2020arXiv

Relative impacts of different grade-scales on student success in introductory physics

In deciding on a student's grade in a class, an instructor generally needs to combine many individual grading judgments into one overall judgment. Two relatively common numerical scales used to specify individual grades are the 4-point scale (where each whole number 0-4 corresponds to a letter grade) and the percent scale (where letter grades A through D are uniformly distributed in the top 40% of the scale). This paper uses grading data from a single series of courses offered over a period of 10 years to show that the grade distributions emerging from these two grade scales differed in many ways from each other. Evidence suggests that the differences are due more to the grade scale than to either the students or the instructors. One major difference is that the fraction of students given grades less than C- was over 5 times larger when instructors used the percent scale. The fact that each instructor who used both grade scales gave more than 4 times as many of these low grades under percent scale grading suggests that the effect is due to the grade scale rather than the instructor. When the percent scale was first introduced in these courses in 2006, one of the authors of this paper, who is also one of the instructors in this data set, had confidently predicted that any changes in course grading would be negligible. They were not negligible, even for this instructor.

0 citations0 reviewsNo code linkedOpen access