On the pregnance of bodily movement and geometrical objects: A post-constructivist account of the origin of mathematical knowledge
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Traditional (e.g., constructivist) accounts of knowledge ground its origin in the intentional construction on the part of the learner. Such accounts are blind to the fact that learners, by the fact that they do not know the knowledge to be learned, cannot orient toward it as an object to be constructed. In this study, I provide a phenomenological account of the naissance (birth) of knowledge, two words that both have their etymological origin in the same, homonymic Proto-Indo-European syllable ĝen -, ĝenә -, ĝnē -, ĝnō -. Accordingly, the things of the world and the bodily movements they shape, following Merleau-Ponty (1964), are pregnant with new knowledge that cannot foresee itself, and that no existing knowledge can anticipate. I draw on a study of learning in a second-grade mathematics classroom, where children (6-7 years) learned geometry by classifying and modeling 3-dimensional objects. The data clearly show that the children did not foresee, and therefore did not intentionally construct, the knowledge that emerged from the movements of their hands, arms, and bodies that comply with the forms of things. Implications are drawn for classroom instruction
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".