Getting a Purchase on “The School of Tomorrow” and its Constituent Commodities: Histories and Historiographies of Technologies
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
“The School of Tomorrow,” as envisioned by psychologists Otis Caldwell and Stuart Courtis in 1924, “will pay far more attention to individuals than the schools of the past. Each child will be studied and measured repeatedly from many angles, both as a basis of prescriptions for treatment and as a means of controlling development. The new education will be scientific in that it will rest on a fact basis. All development of knowledge and skill will be individualized, and classroom practice and recitation as they exist today in conventional schools will largely disappear.” “The School of Tomorrow,” would use mechanical equipment, radios, and movies to reveal a world beyond the limits of books and recitations. Textbooks would be constructed for individual success and to underwrite a program of self-rehabilitation. Psychologists, through “experiments in laboratories and in schools of education” would discover “what everyone should know and the best way to learn essential elements.” In the surveillant spaces of “The School of Tomorrow,” hygienically regulated students would learn essential items under “psychologically right conditions.” John and Evelyn Dewey's Schools of Tomorrow (1915) can be read similarly, where psychology and apparatus of individualization underwrite the new pedagogy. Hybrids of buildings, machines, media, and psychologies in a popularized, “modern” culture, promised distinction, excitement, health, hygiene, leisure, and prosperity.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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