MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2085997787 · doi:10.1159/000277060

Equilibration and the Learning Paradox

2010· article· en· W2085997787 on OpenAlexaff
Tim J. Juckes

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Development · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicEducational and Psychological Assessments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive scienceEpistemologyCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Piaget’s term equilibration refers to the process that makes possible the qualitative changes characteristic of stage transitions. Such a construct is necessary in any developmental theory that must account for qualitative changes. Without it, a theory involves a learning paradox. Two neo-Piagetian theories of cognitive development are contrasted to illustrate the necessity of a construct such as equilibration and the paradoxical consequence that results when such a construct is rejected. Pascual-Leone offers a functional explanation of Piaget’s developmental construct and thereby avoids a learning paradox, while Case rejects equilibration and must face the paradox.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.017
Scholarly communication0.0030.011
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.332 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman DevelopmentSame topicEducational and Psychological AssessmentsFrench-language works237,207