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
In this paper, I argue that a lack of play and joy in classrooms could be due to our North American standardized education system, which emphasizes achievement outcomes. I argue that this system does not benefit the majority of students, nor the field of mathematics. Many students are negatively affected—both emotionally and academically—by a focus on results. Rather than outcome-driven pedagogy, a focus on learning to enjoy doing mathematics might change the conversation. A kinder, process-driven approach through mathematical play may spark enjoyable teaching and learning. Play (Gadamer, 1960/1989; Huizinga, 1944/1949) has the potential to absorb learners as they seek answers to fun yet challenging mathematics problems. The experience of flow is similar to that of play (Csikszentmihalyi, 2000); when playing, learners get a chance to practice and elaborate on their existing skills in manners that suspend notions of time. When the play releases them from its grasp, learners experience the joy from solving problems. Dewey (1916) considered play to be purposeful activity that sponsors a child’s growth. Teachers could capitalize on this for growth in learning. Learning to bring mathematical play into the classroom requires intention, an inviting attitude, knowledge of the types of problems that invoke play, and knowledge of how to connect playful problems to mathematical concepts and curriculum. Such engaging experiences with mathematics could sponsor joyful engagement in mathematics and an intrinsic desire to learn more.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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