Imaginación, herramientas cognitivas y alumnos renuentes
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper analyzes how children and teenagers whom we call “reluctant students” are often, anything but reluctant to learn some things. They show all kinds of signs of imaginative participation- but their participation seems unable to connect with the school syllabus. We could wonder: How could we manage to have a curriculum so imaginative and attractive as the world that is exposed to the students? A new answer for some or a lot of those students could come from Lev Vygotsky’s research (1962, 1997). His notion of “cognitive tools” gives us a way to explore how we could capture and involve those students’ imagination to make them see that, what is really wonderful and engaging in the syllabus, could be learnt by anyone and could be turned into a cognitive tool. In this paper we shall see how the cognitive tools to make up stories, the binary opposites and the images generated through words, could be used in a new way. Each of them was at one point, a considerable important cultural invention, and each of them turns now, into a potential cognitive tool to increase our ability to think, communicate and understand.
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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 it