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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article revolves around two experimental examples involving students with and without visual impairment in learning mathematics. The goal is to shed some light on the manner in which learning occurs and how concept formation is achieved within the students’ available sensorial modalities. The examples are analyzed through a theoretical cultural-historical approach to teaching and learning—the theory of knowledge objectification. A key feature of the theory, which is sketched in the first part of the article, is the idea of sensuous cognition. Within this theory, human cognition is not considered as a simple natural or biological feature of living beings. Human cognition is rather considered as a culturally and historically constituted sentient form of creatively responding, acting, feeling, imaging, ransforming, and making sense of the world. The classroom data illustrates the interplay of the various sensuous modalities in mathematical cognition in children with and without visual impairment and makes room for reenvisioning pedagogical actions in special mathematics education.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 it