Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper argues that there has been academic amnesia in the field of self-study with respect to the intellectual heritage underlying self-study as a way of understanding teaching practice. From Aristotle to Dewey, the concept of practical inquiry or deliberation has been a recurrent theme. However Schwab's exploration of the role of the ‘practical’ is the most significant in recent times in focusing attention on ‘the teacher as knowledge creator’ and interpreter of curriculum in classroom settings. This work is particularly important as it came at a time when educational research sought a place in the academy, and ‘technical rationality’ (Schön, 1983) was the vehicle for establishing that position. Schwab's characterisation of classroom practice, in terms of four commonplaces (the teacher, the student, the milieu, and the subject matter), highlighted the significance of the practical and paved the way for what we argue is the fifth commonplace: self-study.
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 | 0.019 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.103 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".