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
The aim of the present study was to analyze the relative effectiveness of two first grade instruction programs: a developmental program that focused on the structural and social-psychological components of stories and their cohesion and a process oriented approach. A total of 43 children participated in daily sessions over 3 months (experimental group N = 22, comparison group N = 21). Measures of conceptual language and oral narrative were obtained and participants' protocols were analyzed for plot and coherence. Statistical analyses showed that the developmental method was more effective than the process approach in advancing the complexity and cohesion of children's narratives. To explore the interactions between instruction and learning, a time series analysis was conducted with seven randomly selected experimental group participants. These results showed that gains did not follow a linear pattern and that performance was shaped by the cognitive complexity of task demands. Implications for the development of narrative thought and classroom instruction are discussed. ( Narrative, Instruction, Development )
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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