MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1564994669 · doi:10.47925/2009.392

Idealism Revisited: Michael Oakeshott’s “Conversation” and the Question of Being-Together

2009· article· en· W1564994669 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 · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEducation, Philosophy, and Society
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationIdealismPoliticsContext (archaeology)SociologyDemocracyInstitutionState (computer science)Face (sociological concept)EpistemologyAestheticsPolitical scienceLawSocial sciencePhilosophyHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A little more than a decade ago, Bill Readings, in the provocatively titled The University in Ruins, insisted that, in the wake of increasing globalization, the most urgent ethical issue facing educators was what he called "the question of beingtogether." 1 Readings framed "being-together" as a "question," since he believed that its moral and political dimensions could be effectively addressed only by an ongoing sensitivity to significant cultural and political shifts.In the context of higher education, Readings claimed that one of the most disturbing changes was the ongoing erosion of the broader rationales that had traditionally linked the functions of the university with the interests of the liberal democratic nation-state.The conventional idea of the university was in danger of falling into "ruins," argued Readings, to the extent that its role as a state institution was under threat from an increasingly interconnected and cross-bordered world.Taking Readings's concerns about the future of higher education at face value, I think it is important that philosophers of education of late have been wrestling with how they ought to think about their relationship to their colleagues who work in departments of philosophy.An essay by Ren Vincente Arcilla entitled "Why Aren't Philosophers and Educators Speaking to Each Other?" which appeared in Educational Theory in the winter of 2002, inspired a symposium issue later that very summer, with all of the contributors earnestly addressing Arcilla's provocative question. 2It also is revealing, I would suggest, although obviously only anecdotally so, that the alternative session at the 2008 Philosophy of Education Society Annual Meeting that seemed to generate the most spirited conference discussion was the one entitled "Philosophy of Education and Mainstream Philosophy."

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.419
Threshold uncertainty score0.376

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.253 · 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