Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to provide diverse approaches to historical consciousness with the help of studies on the subject in other countries. Especially in Canada and the United States, historical consciousness has emerged as an important subject in history education. Jorn Rusen, who is one of the leading scholars in this field, has suggested four types of historical consciousness, namely traditional, exemplary, critical and generic. And they basically form an ascending linear progression. His focus is on the connection between the development of historical consciousness and moral judgments. Working on Rusen’s scheme, Peter Seixas has given a more systematic arrangement to the four types. Seixas can be differentiated from Rusen in that while the former puts what he calls ‘historical epistemology’ at the center of the development of historical consciousness, the latter categorizes the forms of historical consciousness mainly in terms of substantive knowledge about the past. Peter Lee, without denying the merits of Rusen’s study, makes a critical point that Rusen’s typology does not fully take into account students’ metahistorical ideas, that is to say their ideas of the discipline of history. In Lee’s opinion, history education needs to emphasize the development of students’ metahistorical thinking. Jurgen Straub, among many other things, tackles the problem of whether historical consciousness is an anthropological universal or a historical product. Straub gravitates towards its historical aspects and argues that modern historical consciousness is related to being aware of historicity and contingency of our world. Lastly Sam Wineburg, with the help of the study of collective memory by Maurice Halbwachs, shows that several elements such as family, community, mass media, and others are in play in the development of students’ historical consciousness. And he suggests that researchers see school history education in the context of the ‘cultural curriculum’ and realize its importance in the shaping of students’ consciousness.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".