MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079820568 · doi:10.1177/1477878507086731

Educating for well-being and autonomy

2008· article· en· W2079820568 on OpenAlexaff
Stefaan E. Cuypers, Ishtiyaque Haji

Bibliographic record

VenueTheory and Research in Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFree Will and Agency
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAxiologyAutonomyAgency (philosophy)ChampionSociologyEpistemologyEnvironmental ethicsAction (physics)Philosophy of educationIdeal (ethics)Well-beingSocial psychologyLaw and economicsPsychologyHigher educationPolitical scienceLawSocial sciencePhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liberals champion the view that promoting autonomy — seeing to it that our children develop into individuals who are self-governing in the conduct of their lives — is a vital aim of education, though one generally accredited as being subsidiary to well-being. Our prime goal in this article is to provide a partial validation of this liberal ideal against the backdrop of a freedom-sensitive attitudinal hedonism — our favored life-ranking axiology.We propose that there is a pivotal connection between the concept of maximizing well-being and another concept central in the philosophy of education and in the literature on free agency: the concept of our springs of action, such as our desires or beliefs, being `truly our own' or, alternatively, autonomous. We suggest that it is the freedom that moral responsibility requires that bridges the overarching aim of securing well-being, on the one hand, and the subsidiary aim of promoting autonomy, on the other.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.022
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0000.004
Research integrity0.0010.003
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.317 · 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

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTheory and Research in EducationSame topicFree Will and AgencyFrench-language works237,207