MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1581555042 · doi:10.47925/2001.373

John Dewey’s Pragmatism and Moral Education

2001· article· en· W1581555042 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 · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPragmatism in Philosophy and Education
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPragmatismVirtueEpistemologyRhetoricMoral educationSociologyPhilosophy of educationVirtue ethicsPhilosophyPedagogyHigher educationLawTheologyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dewey’s views on education follow from his version of pragmatism. In this essay I shall argue that Dewey’s pragmatism did not allow him to develop a coherent theory of moral education. Dewey’s rhetoric suggests that his position on moral education can be associated with virtue ethics, yet, although he used conspicuously “moral” terms such as “virtues” and “habits” throughout his writings, this did not amount to a workable theory of moral education. For Dewey, virtue amounted to the cultivation of correct habits, which he deemed to be of primary concern to education. His views on habits (and consequently on virtues), however, are inconsistent. I shall show that the discrepancies in Dewey’s views on “virtues” are not due to a mere sloppiness in writing but rather due to Dewey’s pragmatism.

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 score0.582
Threshold uncertainty score0.856

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.264
Teacher spread0.224 · 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