MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2029397848 · doi:10.2174/1875399x01205010076

Constraints-led Approach and Emergent Learning: Using Complexity Thinking to Frame Collectives in Creative Dance and Inventing Games as Learning Systems

2012· article· en· W2029397848 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

VenueThe Open Sports Sciences Journal · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicChaos, Complexity, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDanceFraming (construction)Computer scienceCognitive sciencePerspective (graphical)Process (computing)Frame (networking)Coherence (philosophical gambling strategy)Repetition (rhetorical device)Experiential learningLearning theoryConstraint (computer-aided design)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceCognitive psychologyMathematics educationMathematicsLinguisticsVisual artsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper will describe complexity theory as framing an emergent learning process. This process will be connected to a constraint-led approach to skill learning and a non-linear pedagogy perspective in physical education Often traditional and common sense notions of learning are framed as a correspondence process focused on acquiring or accumulating information such as repetition of technical cues in PE to do a skill in an activity. In this paper I will elaborate on a broader conception of learning systems, shifting concepts of learning from correspondence to coherence theories of knowing, where learning is described as an emergent process. By way of examples, this paper will discuss how pedagogical approaches associated with creative dance [2] and inventing games [3]can form complex learning systems that can be understood using complexity thinking.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies, Scholarly communication
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.121
GPT teacher head0.357
Teacher spread0.236 · 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