MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W10953929 · doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00171

Caring for the land : Nemaska Cree strategies of resistance to the EM-1-A and Rupert Diversion Project in eastern James Bay, northern Quebec

2008· dissertation· en· W10953929 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miriam Atkinson

Bibliographic record

VenueChild Development · 2008
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicMining and Resource Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPoliticsOpposition (politics)BattleGeographyFraming (construction)Local governmentEnvironmental planningPolitical sciencePublic administrationEnvironmental resource managementArchaeologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Previous research has suggested both links and differences between children's copying of line diagrams and their drawings of solid objects. If the diagram represents a familiar object, children make more errors than when copying a diagram of a nonobject or unfamiliar object, as if they are drawing from their representation of the object rather than copying the surface features of the diagram. However, copying a diagram yields fewer and different types of errors than drawing the equivalent solid, which suggests a different process. In Experiment 1 (n = 72), possible relations between copying and drawing are investigated by asking children to draw a solid cube, then to copy or trace a line diagram of the cube in oblique projection, and finally to draw the solid again. Copying was better than drawing, and there was positive transfer to a subsequent drawing. Tracing was very accurate, but transfer to drawing did not occur, possibly because of the automatic nature of tracing. In Experiment 2 (n = 120) different groups received versions of the copying task that differed in the extent to which temporal order of line copying was structured. Asking children to copy the lines in a systematic order led to improved copies, but this performance did not carry over to a subsequent drawing of the solid. In contrast, when temporal ordering of line copying was not manipulated, there was positive transfer from copying to the subsequent drawing. In Experiment 3 (n = 80), provision of structure that emphasized faces by color-groupings of lines or coloring faces led to improved copies and did not hinder transfer to drawing the solid. Experiment 4 (n = 90) showed that in a solid drawing task emphasis on faces but not edges produced a positive effect, both on the immediate drawing and on a subsequent drawing of a plain cube. We conclude that emphasis on order of line copying improves performance in a copying task because in that case line-to-line matching is an important element of the skill, whereas this does not aid drawing of the solid object, in which the focus is primarily on representation of faces and their interrelations.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.644
Threshold uncertainty score0.869

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.201 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChild DevelopmentSame topicMining and Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207