Modos de resolução de labirintos por alunos da escola fundamental
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Saber planejar expressa uma forma de antecipação com pré-correção de erros e uso de inferências. Esta questão foi aqui analisada em 60 matrizes de labirintos (20 A, 20 B e 20 C), resolvidas por 20 alunos da Escola Fundamental, entre 7 e 11 anos. Deste total, 31 matrizes foram resolvidas com um único traçado. As 29 restantes foram analisadas, considerando-se, dentre outros, procedimentos indicadores de planejamento: (1) começar do final, (2) aproveitar o traçado anterior e (3) interromper o traçado. O procedimento (1) foi utilizado pelos sujeitos em 7 matrizes; o procedimento (2) em 9; e o procedimento (3) em 5. Na discussão, apoiada em estudos comparáveis realizados por Piaget, destacaram-se três níveis de resolução das matrizes utilizadas. E, nas considerações finais, foram descritas algumas formas de intervenção, visando favorecer, em um contexto educacional, o desenvolvimento da habilidade de antecipação em crianças.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".