MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3139426836 · doi:10.32370/ia_2021_03_12

The Methods for Forming Artistic and Creative Experience of the Future Choreography Teacher in the Process of Professional Education

2021· article· en· W3139426836 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
V. V. Maksymenko, Olga Shcholokova

Bibliographic record

VenueIntellectual Archive · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Methods and Teacher Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsChoreographyProcess (computing)CreativityPerceptionPsychologyProfessional developmentInterpretation (philosophy)PedagogyVisual artsDanceMathematics educationSociologyAestheticsComputer scienceArtSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The article represents an experimental study, which is aimed at forming the artistic and creative experience of the future choreography teacher in the process of professional training. It is noted that questions about rethinking the social purpose of the profession of choreography teacher deserve special attention on the modern development of artistic education and updating its content, because exactly he is able to implement socially significant innovations creatively and respond mobile to the cultural demands of the time. It is emphasized that the formation of artistic and creative experience should be directed to the development of the future choreography teacher the need in communication with works of art through perception and performance interpretation, as well as valuable attitude to them; motivated gain of knowledge in the area of choreographic art and features of its expressive means as a basis for creation of choreographic images; the development of the ability to perceive artistic images in the area of choreographic art and the skills to apply the acquired artistic and creative experience consciously for in-depth mastery of choreographic works, which will contribute to the personal development of the future teacher in the vector of professional activity. Taking into account all these features requires the effective use of creative tasks and active methods, their disclosure as a mean of improving and optimizing the process of professional learning.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.004
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIntellectual ArchiveSame topicEducational Methods and Teacher DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207