All Adult Educators are Citizens, Not All Citizens are Adult Educators: A Response to Ian Baptiste
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article proposes a counter-argument to Ian Baptiste's "Beyond Reason and Personal Integrity: Towards a Pedagogy of Coercive Restraint" (CJSAE, 14(1), May, 2000). I argue that we must make a fundamental distinction between the adult educator (who must never use violent means to attain particular ends) and the citizen (who is faced with risky choices that may require, in extraordinary circumstances, violent actions). Once persons don the robe of the adult educator, they must seek to enlighten the other, and engage in non-violent, educative acts whenever possible. Under no circumstance can adult educators use coercion, deception or manipulation to achieve educational purposes. Résumé Cet article propose un contre-argument a celui de Ian Baptiste, dans son article "Beyond Reason and Personal Integrity: Toward a Pedagogy of Coercive Restraint" (RCÉÉA, 14(1), Mai, 2000). Je conteste que nous devonsfaire une distinction essential entre l'éducateur d'adulte (qui doit jamais recourir a la violence pour atteindre leurs resutats particulier) et le citoyen (qui, face a des situations extraordinaires, et des choix risqué, peuvent mérité la violence). Des que les personnes portent la robe de formation permanente, ils doivent cherchez a avancer les autres, et engager, quand possible, les actes éducatifs non-violents. En aucun cas doivent les éducateurs en formation permanente se permettre d'utiliser la violence, la déception ou la manipulation pour atteindre leurs huts pédagogiques.
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 | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.045 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.047 | 0.101 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".