Is the Athletic Festival Undokai Child-Centered? -History and discussion on athletic festivals at Japanese kindergartens-
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is probably no kindergarten without an athletic festival Undokai in Japan. Froebel, the father of kindergarten, wrote about Play Festivals that are quite similar to the athletic festivals of today. However, the Japanese athletic festival did not develop from Froebel`s concept. Rather, they came out of the festival tradition in Japanese naval colleges and universities. These festivals, over time, filtered down to elementary education and then to kindergartens in Japan. Athletic festival is characterized by physical competition and group training and these characteristics philosophically are counter to the principles of kindergarten education, which focuses more on children`s autonomy and spontaneity. The two reasons given for the common practice of the athletic festival are (1) that it encourages parents to participate and, (2) that both parents and children under-stand the entertaining value of sharing the joy of watching growing children. Although instruction on group behavior or observing rules tends to be teacher-centered, teachers today pay close attention to creating an atmosphere and exchanging ideas through discussion so that children can be actively and willingly involved. The potential problem is that the teachers` instructional abilities can divert their expectations away from the viewpoint of child-centeredness. Athletic festivals have become a necessity to kindergartens in Japan yet at the same time they continue to raise a potential problem for encouraging the development of individuality and the sense of individuals contributing and belonging to a group.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".