Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to analyze the dance curriculum conceptual frameworks for dance of foreign countries in kindergarten through twelfth grade in order to provide a theoretical base for the development of dance curriculum. For this, various dance curriculum frameworks issued by United States of America, Australia, England, and Canada were gathered by criterion-based selection and analyzed by utilizing content analysis. The dance curriculum conceptual framework in kindergarten through twelfth grades based on the results of the analysis is as follows; Rationale of dance education in school are based on Gardner`s theory of multiple intelligence, Bloom`s taxonomy, Erikson`s theory of life stage, Torrance`s creative thinking, and Guilford`s intellect structure. The goal of dance education is for students to become educated in the creative are discipline of dance. To accomplish this goal the dance program encompasses four dimensions of dance: physical, cognitive, affective, and social domain. The contents of learning include core learning area and general learning area. The core learning area incorporates the cross-curricular priorities of critical and creative thinking communication, life skill, numeracy, and technological literacy. The general learning area involves theory, creation, and analysis.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".