El lugar del relativismo en los intercambios filosóficos de los alumnos
Bibliographic record
Abstract
espanolEn el presente trabajo nos proponemos estudiar la relacion entre el dialogo filosofico y el pensamiento critico de los alumnos cuando se utiliza en clase el enfoque del FPNM (programa de filosofia para ninos adaptado a las matematicas). Tomamos como punto de partida las perspectivas epistemologicas: egocentrismo, relativismo e intersubjetividad orientada al significado. Dichas perspectivas reflejan los lazos entre las creencias de las personas y las justificaciones que utilizan para apoyarlas. La investigacion que aqui presentamos forma parte de un proyecto mas amplio, subvencionado por el Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (1998-2002) y fue llevada a cabo en tres diversos contextos culturales: Australia, Mexico y Quebec. Su objetivo general es el estudio global de las manifestaciones del pensamiento critico de los alumnos y su proceso de desarrollo. En este proceso, emerge la distincion entre un intercambio monologico y uno dialogico, junto a diferentes matices entre un dialogo no critico, semi-critico y critico. Si relacionamos las caracteristicas de cada tipo de intercambio con las perspectivas epistemologicas que emergieron del analisis de las transcripciones de intercambios entre los alumnos, podremos determinar en que medida el dialogo filosofico entre jovenes es relativista (no critico) o intersubjetivo (evaluativo), asi como la influencia de la praxis de dicho dialogo en el desarrollo del pensamiento critico. EnglishThis article is about the relation between the philosophical dialogue and the students' critical thinking when the teacher uses in the classroom the approach proposed by the FNPM program (Philosophy for Kids adapted for Mathematics). We start from the epistemological approaches: egocentrism, relativism and intersubjectivity oriented to the meaning. Those approaches make possible to reflect the links between the people's beliefs and the justifications they use to defend them. The research we present here is part of a bigger project subsidized by the Social Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC) (1998-2002) and was carried out in three different cultural contexts: Australia, Mexico and Quebec. Its general purpose is the global study of the ways in which the students' critical thinking show up and of its development process. In this process we can observe a distinction between the monologic and the dialogic exchange, together with different nuances between a no critical, semi critical and critical dialogue. If we establish a relation between the features of each exchange type and the epistemologic approaches which emerged from the analysis of the transcriptions that we made of the exchanges between students, we will be able to determine to what extent the philosophical dialogue between young people is relativist (this means no critical) or intersubjective (evaluative), but also the influence that the praxis of this kind of dialogue can have on the development of critical thinking.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".