MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1839610420 · doi:10.4471/redimat.2013.19

Three Key Concepts of the Theory of Objectification: Knowledge, Knowing, and Learning

2013· article· en· W1839610420 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Research in Mathematics Education · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsLaurentian University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObjectificationEpistemologySketchDialecticKey (lock)HegelianismSociologyUnderpinningLearning theoryPsychologyCognitive sciencePhilosophyComputer sciencePedagogyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I sketch three key concepts of a cultural-historical theory of mathematics teaching and learning—the theory of objectification. The concepts are: knowledge, knowing and learning. The philosophical underpinning of the theory revolves around the work of Georg W. F. Hegel and its further development in the philosophical works of K. Marx and the dialectic tradition (including Vygotsky and Leont’ev). Knowledge, I argue, is movement. More specifically, knowledge is a historically and culturally codified fluid form of thinking and doing. Knowledge is pure possibility and can only acquire reality through activity—the activity that mediates knowledge and knowing. The inherent mediated nature of knowing requires learning, which I theorize as social, sensuous and material processes of objectification. The ideas are illustrated through a detailed classroom example with 9-10-year-old students.

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.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.253
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.170
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.343 · 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