MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126168964

An Exploration of Froebel’s Gift Number 14 leads to Monolinear, Re-entrant, Dichromic Mono-Polyomino Weavings

2011· article· en· W2126168964 on OpenAlexaff
Eva Knoll, Wendy Landry

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of Bridges 2011: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, Culture · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicDesign Education and Practice
Canadian institutionsMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerspective (graphical)Focus (optics)Dimension (graph theory)Modular designComputer scienceComponent (thermodynamics)Mathematics educationHuman–computer interactionVisual artsEpistemologyMathematicsArtificial intelligenceArtCombinatoricsProgramming languagePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When Froebel, the inventor of the Kindergarten [1] designed the “Gifts” and “Occupations” given to the children, he deliberately selected materials that provided a haptic dimension to their explorations. This physicality in the interaction with the gifts can create a significant potential learning focus making full use of concepts of spatial reasoning (front-back, over-under, etc.). For adults playing with the materials for the first time, and incorporating a reflective component in their doing and their thinking, the Gifts can provide a novel perspective on other, deeper mathematical concepts. The following paper and its accompanying workshop present some activities possible with Gift # 14, which involves the Occupation of paper weaving, and explore ideas in modular arithmetic, combinatorial geometry, ethnomathematics and more.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0000.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of Bridges 2011: Mathematics, Music, Art, Architecture, CultureSame topicDesign Education and PracticeFrench-language works237,207