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
We investigate the similarities and differences -- in terms of quantitative performance and qualitative behaviors -- between how children solve an object manipulation task using mouse-based input versus tangible-based input. This work examines the assumption common in tangible computing that direct physical manipulation is beneficial for certain spatial tasks. We describe an ecologically valid comparison of mouse-based versus tangible-based input for a jigsaw puzzle task in order to better understand the tradeoffs in choosing input and interaction styles. We include a traditional cardboard puzzle for comparative purposes. The results of an experiment with 132 children indicate children are more successful and faster at solving puzzles using a tangible-based approach. Detailed temporal analysis indicates that pairs in the tangible group spend most of their time using a combination of epistemic and pragmatic actions which support mental problem solving. Conversely, pairs in the mouse group use an ineffective trial and error strategy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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