MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The Readings of John Dewey’s Work and the Intersection of Catholicism: The Cases of the Institución Libre de Enseñanza and the Thesis of Father Alberto Hurtado, S.J. on Dewey

2009· article· en· W1956699171 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Rosa Bruno‐Jofré, Gonzalo Jover Olmeda

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHistorical Education Studies Worldwide
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContext (archaeology)Reading (process)PragmatismArticulation (sociology)Relevance (law)Transcendental numberSociologyJudgementIntersection (aeronautics)Religious educationTranscendence (philosophy)EpistemologyPhilosophyHumanitiesPedagogyPoliticsLawHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines the way the intersections with religion affected the readings of Dewey and progressive education themes in two discursive Spanish-speaking scenarios. The first scenario refers to how Dewey was read by the Spanish Institución Libre de Enseñanza within the context of the religious (Catholic) debate that took place in Spain during the first decade of the twentieth century. The second refers to the reading of Dewey by Father Alberto Hurtado (recently canonized), a Chilean Jesuit priest, a graduate from Louvain in 1935, and founder of the Hogar de Cristo, who had an important educational presence in Chile. The intersection of Catholicism was relevant in the two scenarios although the mediations were substantially different. Both readings purposely separated Dewey’s pedagogical thinking from his pragmatist philosophy. However, while Father Hurtado did a Catholic reading to articulate Dewey’s pedagogical thinking with religious transcendence, the members of the Institución read Dewey with the intention of liberating education from religious dogmatism, but still keeping a transcendental vision of the humane. The two scenarios show not only that habits and belief systems set limits on what can be integrated in a concept of education, but also the relevance of contingent conditions in the articulation of educational theories and practices.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.093

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0260.057
Scholarly communication0.0100.007
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.266 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEncounters in Theory and History of EducationSame topicHistorical Education Studies WorldwideFrench-language works237,207