Socrates Seen in Ontario Highschools (And He Has Not Left the Building!)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Philosophy is a relatively new subject in Ontario Highschools, and the teacher education programs that serve this subject area are even newer. It is laudable that high school students have this opportunity, especially since the intellectual habits of critical thinking and healthy skepticism that philosophy promotes run counter to the traditional educational experiences that students have in many other subjects. However, very little is known about how teachers imagine their role and the “proper outcomes” of this course. We examine interview data concerning how high school philosophy teachers conceptualize their ideal pedagogical aims. This question goes to the heart of why these courses are so important because curriculum is always filtered through teachers’ interpretations of it and the aims of education. Teachers look to Socratic questioning and critical thinking as the paragon of philosophical habits, but their responses reveal that “institutional constraints” and “sources of bias” pose two major impediments to this ideal. We focus on these impediments to underscore the importance of the teacher’s role and efforts in philosophy classes, and to encourage those in teacher education to take them seriously in designing courses in the new “teachable subject area” of philosophy in Ontario faculties of education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.020 | 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".