MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2036690093 · doi:10.1159/000278725

Comparing and Transforming: An Application of Piaget’s Morphisms Theory to the Development of Class Inclusion and Arithmetic Problem Solving

2010· article· en· W2036690093 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

VenueHuman Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMorphismClass (philosophy)Inclusion (mineral)Piaget's theory of cognitive developmentCognitive developmentDevelopment (topology)Interpretation (philosophy)Transformation (genetics)Cognitive scienceArithmeticMathematicsCognitionComputer sciencePsychologyArtificial intelligenceProgramming languagePure mathematicsSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In his final works, Piaget suggested formalizing the developmental processes operating in different fields in terms of the mathematical theory of morphisms and categories. This new approach is used to account for the stages of development in two distinct fields: the understanding of the concept of inclusion observed via quantification tasks and the resolution of complex additive problems in arithmetic. We shall demonstrate that the distinction between intramorphic, intermorphic and transmorphic levels proposed by Piaget accounts for the stages of development in these two fields as well as for numerous empirical facts which have been considered incompatible with the earlier structuralist approach. As Piaget suggested, the main difficulty which children encounter in trying to resolve inclusion and additive problems is indeed the transition from state-oriented to transformation-oriented reasoning.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.404
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.260 · 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