MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2559049043 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n12p12

The Failure to Construct Proof Based on Assimilation and Accommodation Framework from Piaget

2016· article· en· W2559049043 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicMathematics Education and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAccommodationAssimilation (phonology)Mathematics educationProof of conceptConstruct (python library)Think aloud protocolQualitative researchProcess (computing)Class (philosophy)PsychologyComputer scienceMathematicsArtificial intelligenceLinguisticsSociologyProgramming language

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">The purpose of this article is to describe the process of a proof construction. It is more specific on the failure of the process. Piaget’s frameworks, assimilation and accommodation, were used to analyze it. Method of this research was qualitative method. Data were collected by asking five students working on problems of proof using think aloud strategy. Student’s works were compared with the problem structures. Based on the data analysis, it shows that there were three causes of failure of proof construction. The failure occurs on constructing proof because (1) Incomplete schemes on assimilation, (2) Incomplete schemes on accomodation process, (3) Complete schemes but unrelated on assimilation and accomodation process.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.532
Threshold uncertainty score0.844

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.119
GPT teacher head0.457
Teacher spread0.337 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it