MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W83277450

How Important Are the Montessori Materials

2008· article· en· W83277450 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Angeline S. Lillard

Bibliographic record

VenueMontessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori Society · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Methods and Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVisual artsArt
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past five years I have visited scores of Montessori classrooms, most of them in the US and Canada. Many commonalities were observed. For example, in almost every one, children usually freely choose their activities, and engage hands-on with material objects. They take care of the environment, wiping up their own spills, and dusting and sweeping. And there are always identifiable Montessori materials, like the Pink Tower and the Metal Insets, on low shelves spread throughout the room.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.059
Threshold uncertainty score0.117

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.005

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.

Opus teacher head0.060
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.281 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations20
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMontessori Life: A Publication of the American Montessori SocietySame topicEducation Methods and PracticesFrench-language works237,207