Bibliographic record
Abstract
Critical thinking is often described by philosophers of education as a process of transcendence: a way to take one's beliefs, values, and actions as objects of thought, and to reflect on them for the sake of evaluation and possible transformation.John Dewey argues, for example, that "the essence of critical thinking is suspended judgment"; it involves a pause that allows us to stand back to reflect, to "metaphorically climb a tree[to get] a more commanding view of the situation." 1 This process calls for a difficult balancing act between commitment and suspicion.Effective transcendence requires recognition of one's fallibility, a degree of suspicion regarding one's views and methods of thinking as a motivation for distancing oneself from these in order to evaluate them.Yet distancing must not be taken too far -one must trust in and remain committed to certain beliefs and methods as criteria for judgment in order to ground the evaluation made possible by stepping back to reflect.Critical thinkers must recognize their own fallibility without being paralyzed by it, and must commit to evaluative criteria without losing the suspicion that motivates reflection and revision.Teachers who work to promote critical thinking as transcendence must find a way to negotiate this balance, avoiding too much emphasis on either extreme.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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 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".