Learning by imitation in dance: a constructive "resonance"?
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 paper aims to deepen our understanding of the “demonstration-reproduction” pedagogical approach that is traditionally used in dance instruction by examining the interactions between teachers and students in contemporary dance technique classes. The discussion presented here is based on results drawn from a descriptive and comparative study of the instruction of five movement sequences, which were selected from our observations of five dance classes given by five different teachers at two preprofessionnal contemporary dance training institutions in Montreal, Canada. An epistemological and methodological approach known as “Activity Analysis” allowed us to describe and analyze the interactions between dance teachers and students, all while noting the instructor’s own personal preferences, associations, and coupling of activities. As such, we were able to observe a number of different teaching styles, and identify the conditions under which the demonstration-reproduction educational mode was most suitable and constructive. The concept of imitation will be considered here as it pertains to biological factors drawn from the neuroscientific research on mirror neurons, as well as a number of sociological factors as defined from the social constructivist perspective.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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