The Debate about Methods of Using the Laboratory Plan (Dalton Plan) During History and Social Studies Classes in the “Istorik-Marxist” Journal in 1927
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The importance of the problem investigated is caused by modern trends in the Russian educational system which aims to seek new teaching methods for various disciplines including historical ones. The reference to debates about teaching methods in History and Social Studies in the second half of 1920s allows to make a practical use of the ideas that were never realized because the unified Soviet educational system was established in 1930s. The purpose of the article is in investigation of the debate that took place in 1927 in “Istorik-Marxist” journal, as well as the analysis of the main problems that arise in the process of using the Dalton Plan and ways of their solution. The leading approaches to investigating the problem given are the comparative-historical method and the essential-substantional analysis. The article shows in retrospect the condition of teaching historical and public disciplines in the Soviet system of education, examines the process of the debate about methods of using the Dalton Plan in the “Istorik-Marxist” journal, reveals certain complications that teachers of the second half of 1920s faced and offers the ideas of their solution. The ideas of the article can be useful for researchers in the field of education history, varieties of pragmatic methods use while teaching the Humanities, the USSR public opinion in the second half of 1920s.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".