History and the relationship between scientific and pedagogical knowledge: anatomy lectures then and now
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, school science has been the target of increasing critique for two reasons. On the one hand, it is said to enforce ‘epic’ images of science that celebrate the heroes and heroic deeds that established the scientific canon and its methods and thereby falsifies the history and nature of science. On the other hand, the sciences are presented as objective, making factual statements independent of location and time—a claim that runs counter to the current mainstream canon of scientific knowledge as socially and individually constructed. In this article, we suggest that contexts leading to new scientific knowledge make science objective and subjective simultaneously. Our approach, which focuses on the performative dimensions of (school) science, works to overcome the distinctions between knowledge and knowing and the associated distinction between theory and practice. We show the significance of the performative dimension through a comparison of anatomy lectures and texts from the 17th century and in present-day biology classrooms. We underscore the need to retain and investigate the historical connections between the founding of (scientific) knowledge and its present-day form taught in schools.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it