Cultural historical activity theory, double stimulation, and conflicts of motives in education science: Where have we been? (2012-2021)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) can be used both as a theoretical and an analytical framework. It has been used in a wide variety of contexts over a wide variety of research objects in education and other fields requiring a comprehensive understanding of interactions within a system. At a theoretical level, the relation between double stimulation and instrumental mediation has been studied and understood, yet the link between double stimulation and conflicts of motives is understudied. How has scientific literature considered this avenue for research over the past ten years? A systematic literature review was conducted, and thematic analysis was performed in order to identify themes. As of the first quarter of 2021, scientific literature in education sciences does not yet reflect the interest and potential of this research avenue. Double stimulation and its relation to conflicts of motives are key components to form volitional action in education contexts and is therefore a valuable research object.
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 it