MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W30350381 · doi:10.1002/chem.201805249

Exécuter des dessins géométriques : approche développementale

2006· dissertation· en· W30350381 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Claudine Biscara

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skills
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsCentripetal forceRelevance (law)Computer scienceStability (learning theory)Computer graphics (images)MechanicsPhysicsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study deals with execution of drawings composed of embedded geometric shapes. Previous studies conducted by Baldy, Chatillon and Cadopi (1993) provided evidence for the existence of two executions : centripetal (outside to inside direction) and centrifugal (inside to outside direction). In these studies, it also appeared that, most of the time, the centripetal execution was produced. Our research focuses on its stability. Two series of experiments were carried out with children and adults. In the first one, participants copy several drawings. In the second one, the procedure we used is based on the theory of non linear dynamic systems. Indeed, participants have to reproduce a drawing by completing a continuum of circles which diameter gradually varies. The main results were the following. First, we confirm the effet of pattern structure on the execution ordre (Baldy, Chatillon & Magnan, 2001 ; van Sommers, 1984 ; Marot & Vinter, 2003). Second, we observe that the execution is influenced by previous execution(s), especially for young children. The centrifugal execution appears as stable as the centripetal execution since it resists to contextual contraints. This research underlines the relevance of using a dynamic approach to account of both within-individual variability and the cognitive development.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.291 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCognitive and developmental aspects of mathematical skillsFrench-language works237,207