TGM e Scuola Primaria.Possibili correlazioni tra abilita grosso-motoriee profitti disciplinari
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Today, gradually, it has come to the conviction that it could not study the mind without taking into consideration the fact that it is strongly influenced by the brain, and especially from the body. Over the last fifteen years, in various research fields there was a proliferation of studies about “embodied” cognition, ie the emerging view that considers cognitive processes deeply rooted in the interaction of the body with the world. Starting from this theoretical framework, the aim of this work was to descend in the educational context and check for possible correlations between motor skills and school marks of the first quarter of disciplinary pupils belonging to five different age groups. For a sample of 200 students were administered the TGM (Test of Evaluation of gross motor skills, Dale Ulrich, 1992) and the results were statistically analyzed according to Pearson and Spearman’s coefficient. The results showed, although not always with particularly significant indices, since the sample relatively low, some interesting positive correlations between these two macro-variables, opening up some interesting reflections on the introductory basis theories
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 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 | 0.007 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
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 teacher head, 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".