MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3125282789 · doi:10.3968/11994

The Construction of “One-Center and Three-Level” Kindergarten Environment Creation Curriculum Group

2020· article· en· W3125282789 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Fang Feng

Bibliographic record

VenueHigher education of social science · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Technology and Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCurriculumMathematics educationCenter (category theory)Computer scienceIsolation (microbiology)Group workCognitionPedagogyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The construction of a “one-center and three-level” kindergarten environment creation curriculum group is theoretically built on Dewey’s idea of ‘learning by doing’ and the concept of the whole practice, and it is intended for solving problems such isolation between courses in a curriculum, the disjunction between art courses and the actual situation of kindergartens, lack of inquisitiveness among students and their poor ability to learn through collaboration. The researcher follows the curriculum construction philosophy of “focusing on exploration, strengthening practice and developing progressively”, takes the “kindergarten environment creation” course as the core, sets up a “one-system, one-group, one-whole” curriculum management mechanism, and implements intramural-extramural and online-offline dual teaching model. Through course integration, the researcher perfects the cognitive structure of students, develops comprehensive environment creation capability of students; builds a community of practical teaching, reinforces the connection between courses and actual work of kindergartens, develops the ability of students to achieve mastery through a comprehensive study; conducts online-offline mixed teaching, advance deep learning of students, and enhances the ability of teachers to conduct information-based teaching.

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.931
Threshold uncertainty score0.375

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHigher education of social scienceSame topicEducational Technology and PedagogyFrench-language works237,207