Seeking the Affective and the Imaginative in the Act of Reading: Embodied Consciousness and the Evolution of the Moral Self
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dewey believed that the disregard for aesthetic and affective factors in American schools was "the greatest deficiency in…education systems with respect to character building." 1 He maintained that the sympathetic imagination that grows out of having certain communal and intersubjective experiences is central to moral inquiry and the development of a good moral character.Effective moral education can only occur when students "happen to be already animated by a sympathetic and dignified regard for the sentiments of others." 2 To Dewey, moral blindness and narrowness of mind were the direct result of a lack of the affective and imaginative in one's educational life.In his view, affective relations with others and with a variety of situations signified access to a landscape that would not otherwise be available.I believe that recent developments in neuroscience and the emerging field of consciousness studies are beginning to offer more adequate and embodied accounts of the structure and function of imagery and affect that can establish literary reading as precisely such a landscape.Dewey argued vehemently that education should provide ample opportunities to examine the qualia of our subjective experience.Unless there is a direct, mainly unreflective appreciation of persons and deeds, the data for subsequent thought will be lacking or distorted.A person must feel the qualities of acts as one feels with the hands that qualities of roughness and smoothness.3
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.020 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".