Bibliographic record
Abstract
Terry Heinrichs’s rejoinder (in this issue, 169) criticizes me and the Canadian boards of education for firing Malcolm Ross and Paul Fromm. In essence, Heinrichs agrees that the firing of James Keegstra was justified, as Keegstra brought his hatred into his classroom. Heinrichs thinks the case is very different when hate mongers preach hatred only outside of the classroom. Then their position as “educators ” should remain intact. In essence, while I think that you can either be a hate monger or a teacher, Heinrichs thinks there is no inner contradiction between the two. You can spew your venom in all public places, but as long as you refrain from explicitly bringing it to the classroom, that’s fine. Well, I remain convinced that it is not. I explained my case thor-oughly in “Hate in the Classroom ” (Cohen-Almagor 2008) and do not intend to repeat myself. Let me add the following reflections on this quite puzzling rejoinder. It is puzzling because Heinrichs failed to understand that my article deals with education and the role of the teacher. Heinrichs instead interprets my article as a restrictive thesis of free expression. It is also puzzling because of its particularly harsh and inflamed tone. And it is puzzling because it is marred with inaccuracies as well as sweeping and sometimes demagogic asser-tions. Let me explicate. Heinrichs writes that I said (1) teachers must keep their nonconforming views to themselves both in and out of the classroom and that they must either (2) refrain from expressing these views publicly or (3) express only those ap-proved by the relevant board of education. What I did say is that teachers should keep their hateful views to themselves and not pronounce them publicly (i.e., involve themselves in hate mongering) if they wish to serve as educators. I never made the third claim. Heinrichs asserts that “Cohen-Almagor’s contention that it is right to fire
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 | 0.022 | 0.072 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.060 | 0.100 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".