MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2037256191 · doi:10.3138/sim.3.1.003

Technologising Pedagogy: The Internet, Nihilism, and Phenomenology of Learning

2003· article· en· W2037256191 on OpenAlex
Michael A. Peters

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueSIMILE Studies In Media & Information Literacy Education · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Theory and Philosophy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNihilismPhenomenology (philosophy)PsychologyPedagogyPsychoanalysisSociologyPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Advances in information and communications technologies have transformed our practices of reading, writing, communicating, and viewing. They have also accelerated the transmission, storage, and retrieval of information. Accordingly, the nature of our knowledge practices and institutions has changed. New information and communication technologies raise complex ontological, epistemological, ethical, and identity issues; they present exciting educational possibilities, but also grave dangers. This article outlines the Heideggerian program of philosophy of technology in education, beginning with Martin Heidegger himself, continuing with Herbert Marcuse and Michel Foucault, and concluding with Hubert Dreyfus' On the Internet and his Heideggerian analysis of effects of the technologisation of pedagogy on the phenomenology of learning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.722

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.374 · 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