MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dewey in Argentina: Tradition, intention, and situation in the production of a selective reading

2009· article· en· W1535320502 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Marcelo Caruso, Inés Dussel

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Education Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDictatorshipReading (process)ScholarshipPoliticsReputationDemocracySociologyPolitical scienceLawSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From the 1910s on, Argentinean educators looked repeatedly at Dewey’s work in search for models of educational reform. However, his undisputed reputation as a major thinker contrasted with a very selective view of his work and a weak reception in institutional terms. In fact, substantial parts of his scholarship were marginalized, in a selective reading that produced a de-politicized version of Dewey as an educational reformer. The multiple relationships between “democracy” and “education” or “schooling” opened up by Dewey’s thought were reduced in Argentina to a peculiar “didactics,” in a movement that reflected the intellectual and political trajectories of the supporters of the New Education Movement. In this chapter, working through translations, articles and comments on Dewey’s work, we will will focus on understanding the range of alternative readings that were available at a particular time, and the contexts of debate in which they became possible. The liberal and Catholic traditions of reading foreign references and models will be put together with the struggles that organized political oppositions in the period considered, and with the particularly heated climate (first democratically elected government, military dictatorships, Perón’s election) that marked these years and that tainted Dewey’s reception in Argentina.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.544
Threshold uncertainty score0.257

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.285 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicHistorical Education Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207