Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gifted child may be defined as one who is by nature possessed of the potential to achieve eminence.Recent interest in the education of gifted children has led to the introduction in many towns and cities of programmes adjusted to their needs and abilities.Spurred on by a sense of urgency resulting from well-publicized accounts of scientific advances in the u.s. s.R. purporting to be due to an advanced school system and by what may be a belated recognition of a weakness in our educational syste~ the developnent and improvement of such programmes is now a major concern of educationalists.A comparative study of what has been done to the present will assist planners by summarizing the procedures adopted, comparing the methods used and attempt:ing a preliminary evaluation of the results.It will also bring together :in summary mueh unpublished material.iii CHA.Pl'ER 1 ' children.The tributes paid to relatively obscure teachers by persons who have risen to prominence are well known to all.The chief lack was of systematic planning and, without this, evaluation and improvement were impossible.The first fulltime special classes for gifted pupils on this continent began nearly forty years ago.Probably most well-.known is the Major Work programme of Cleveland, Ohio.In Canada, 1 s.w.Steins on, "The Characteristics of Bright Children n, Journal of F.ducation, Series 5, Vol. 4, No. 3 (June, 1955}, P• 51.2 1.s.Hollingworth, Gifted Children, Their Nature andNurture, New York: The MacMillan Co., 1926.This is generally considered to be one of the best books ever written on gifted children.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".