Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to consider what kind of competence the learning based on the theory of constructivism develop through the case study on portfolio assessment in Japan and Canada. 1. The use of portfolio makes apparent children's inner process in music learning. 2. The case in Canada assessed both qualitatively and quantitatively children's inner process with the criterion on the basis of the process of perception, while the case in Japan assessed quantitatively children's inner process with the standard of the level of good performance. In the case of Canada, the criterion embodying teaching content can make possible qualitative assessment. 3. Both cases in Canada and Japan included the assessment of expressive idea and technique and of human relationship. Perception of element of art work was found in Canada. On the other hand, performing technique was observed in Japan, instead. 4. Perception-reaction is supposed to be reconstructed in the music learning based on the theory of constructivism. 5. We can find perception in the case in Canada, but not reaction related to imagination. We cannot find perception-reaction in the case in Japan. 6. The music teaching-learning process in constructivism should stand on the structural perspective of competence with a core of perception-reaction, and have two-layer structure of musical activity and its reflection.
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 | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".