Bibliographic record
Abstract
Education is, at all levels and in all forms, guided by ideas about the good life.Values such as independence, honesty, patience, fairness, courage, and care areincluded in mission statements of schools and universities, and taught implicitly orexplicitly in educational settings ranging from the science lab to the soccer field. Inother words, the purpose of the various forms of education is to foster thedevelopment of certain kinds of “ethical subjects.”In the past several decades, ideas about decentering the subject (or self) haveemerged. Many contemporary (especially Continental) philosophers today workfrom the premise that the individual subject that was so solidly at the center inmodernist philosophy, has been definitively dethroned. However, the ethical frame-works that most commonly guide educational practice — autonomy, virtue, and care— still rely on this modernist conception of the subject. While ethics of autonomyand virtue focus on the ethical subject, and the ethic of care focuses on the ethicalrelationship between subject and other, none of these three frameworks go as far asto decenter the subject in the way that new ideas about the subject have done.This essay examines in greater detail this gap between the dominant ethicalframeworks for education and ideas about subjectivity, and proposes an ethic ofhospitality as a framework that assumes a decentered subjectivity. First, I providea brief overview of the ethics of autonomy, virtue, and care and highlight theconception of the subject that informs each of them. Second, I outline somephilosophical critiques of the subject, as well as misunderstandings about the“death” of the subject. It should then be clear that there is a tension between newideas about subjectivity and the ethical frameworks of autonomy, virtue, and care.Finally, I propose an ethic of hospitality and make suggestions for how this ethicmight inform educational practice.T
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 | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 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".