MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1541869078 · doi:10.47925/2005.299

Teaching and Learning in Wittgenstein’s Philosophic Method

2005· article· en· W1541869078 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePhilosophy of education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicWittgensteinian philosophy and applications
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDepictionReading (process)EpistemologyPhilosophyAestheticsLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION Ludwig Wittgenstein’s depiction of pedagogical scenes are increasingly prominent in his later writing and in the secondary literature surrounding it. This essay offers a synoptic view of the role teaching and learning examples play in Wittgenstein’s later philosophic method, seeing them as a “pedagogical way of doing philosophy.” For the philosopher of education, I pose the challenge of not fetishizing the scenes of instruction. “A poet’s words can pierce us,” Wittgenstein reminds us, because of “the way in which, comfortable to this use, we let our thoughts roam up and down in the familiar surroundings of the words.” His preoccupation with “teach,” “learn,” “train,” “education,” and “pupil” draws us in when reading these scenes, partly obscuring their philosophical significance.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.636
Threshold uncertainty score0.655

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.254 · 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