Explanation-giving in a collaborative tangible tabletop game: Initiation, positionality, valence, and action-orientation
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
Explanations given to each other by 20 pairs of 5th grade children while playing a tangible tabletop sustainability game were analyzed inductively for key themes relating to their use of language, gesture and system tools. Half the pairs had been assigned roles (human development or natural resources manager) with associated system controls. Findings showed that explanations by pairs in both conditions often employed collectivist language (“we”) in conjunction with positive reflections on the game-world state using the provided Impact Tool which gave feedback while system was paused. Pairs in the roles condition also gave explanations in response to partner actions and more frequently included negative and actionoriented prospective language about what should be changed moving forward. Roles pairs additionally used questions to seek confirmation or action from their partner and made comments from the perspective of the inhabitants of the fictional world. Implications for theresearch and design of collaborative tabletop learning systems are discussed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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