The Vygotsky–Sakharov Method for Concept Learning. Approbation in a Healthy Sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present article addresses the initial phase of the testing of the Vygotsky–Sakharov method for concept learning. This study involved 150 persons of the group of healthy subjects (no diagnosis registered) at the age of 18 to 45 years old (M=35.2, SD=8.65), 51 males and 99 females. The study used Vygotsky-Sakharov method. It tested two hypotheses: not all healthy participants would be able to solve the tasks of the Vygotsky-Sakharov method, healthy participants who coped with the tasks would not develop other preconceptual forms except the preconcept (which was one of the preconceptual forms), while in the group of those who did not not cope with the tasks, all the preconceptual forms should be registered. The present study showed that almost a quarter of the subjects of the control group could not solve the tasks (74% of the respondents solved them successfully, 26% failed). Along with the development of preconcepts, the generation of syncretic forms as well as complexes of the collection and diffuse types was characteristic of the both groups of the respondents who had solved the tasks successfully and unsuccessfully. 24% of the subjects gave responses of a syncretic type. As to the responses of a complex type, 18% of the respondents gave responses of a collection type, and 12% gave responses of a diffuse type. Answers and hypotheses with the complexes of nuclear and chain types were registered in no subject. Thus, group standards were identified according to the amount of time, correctional steps in solving the task and indices of the efficiency of conceptual thinking, and three gradations of the task performance were determined among the subjects who coped with it.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".