An Old Mechanism, Imitation, Geared for Socio-Material Knowing in a “Day in the Life” of First Graders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper adopts sociomateriality as a theoretical lens to further our understanding of how imitation acts to support the use of objects, and in doing so, constitues a sociomaterial practice. Within a sociomaterial perspective we aimed to perform the analysis of imitation as a powerful way to learn how to use objects embedded into the practices within which the objects are constituted. The contribution of this approach is illustrated using the findings of the application of the quasi-ecological DITL methodology to the everyday lives of two 6-year-old children. Within a case-study frame, we traced the children’s imitation behaviors focused on the use of objects during an entire day of their life, the various people and practices with which they were associated, the multiple sociomaterial configurations that the objects assume, and the social and material consequences of their use. Imitation appears to be is a complex activity, involving multiple stakeholders who interact in order to facilitate the understanding of various artifacts across diverse knowledge domains, and enhance their interpretive flexibility across communities of practice.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".