MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1851586938 · doi:10.29173/cmplct8731

Redescribing ‘Education’ in Complex Terms

2005· article· en· W1851586938 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Deborah Osberg

Bibliographic record

VenueComplicity An International Journal of Complexity and Education · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnculturationSubjectivityPoint (geometry)Function (biology)Order (exchange)SociologyPlan (archaeology)EpistemologyPublic relationsPsychologyPedagogyPolitical scienceBusinessHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Education—so we might say—is different from untutored learning or unguided enculturation in that it directs the kind of learning that takes place. In this way education purposely shapes the subjectivity of those being educated. We could, therefore, say that the function of education is to ensure that people have certain kinds of experiences in order that they may achieve certain prespecified educational ends and so become certain kinds of people (such as people who can be creative, people who can solve problems, or work with scientific knowledge, or be politically responsible, and so on). Since, with education, it would seem that people are always socialized into a particular way of life, education can therefore be understood as planned enculturation. Educational environments are designed specifically to move a person— intellectually—from point A to point B. To do this we must know what the starting point is and what the finishing point is. For example to produce ‘creative’ people, or ‘politically responsible’ people we must first of all know the nature of the human subjects we are dealing with. Second, we must know what it means to be ‘creative’ or ‘politically responsible.’ Then we must have a plan or method to move A to B.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0040.043
Scholarly communication0.0110.015
Open science0.0020.005
Research integrity0.0030.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.183
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.177 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations21
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComplicity An International Journal of Complexity and EducationSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207