Does size matter?—Considering the importance of size and scale in educational environments
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
When creating environments for children, adults inevitably face the question of scale.What are the needs of the users?How high or wide should rooms be to instill a feeling of security and a sense of being sheltered by their small users?Does the provision of spaces suitable for children call for miniature environments or does the possibility to experience and explore spaces and furnishings at a variety of scales offer an important learning opportunity for children?How can the potential of educational buildings to function as a three-dimensional textbook and as a teaching and learning tool be fully embraced (Taylor, 2009)?Architecture acts on our senses in many different ways: We do not only see the space, we feel it with all of our senses.We hear the different resonances or echoes depending on the size of the space and the materials used to build and finish it.We understand the distinctive tectonic properties of materials, their size and functions.These are important experiences for children who explore their world.Perception is an active procedure involving all of our senses, while the brain simultaneously processes numerous pieces of information (Guski, 2000).All this creates an overall understanding of the situation in time and space and trains the child's skills.Especially at a young age vestibular, kinesthetic, and somatovisceral senses mature (Walden, 2009).In an ideal world, every school and kindergarten would provide a balanced level of stimulation while reducing stress factors and disturbances to a minimum and allowing the users to physically use, explore and appropriate their learning environment.This study will introduce several examples of schools and kindergartens where the architecture successfully adds to the curriculum in a way that the space helps to develop all human senses in the children and their perception of scale in the environments they are using.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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