Re‐presenting the social construction of science in light of the propositions of Bruno Latour: For a renewal of the school conception of science in secondary schools
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
Abstract Current opinion holds that school science has not been producing the expected outcomes. Highlighted by a considerable body of research, one of the concerns is that young people still mobilize a naive conception of science. Consequently, we must pursue the reflection process concerning ways of renewing the school conception of science so as to propose ways of representing and doing that are a greater source of participation among students. In this article, we argue for the importance of enriching school discourses by mobilizing a socialized conception of science. Our perspective seeks to highlight the major theoretical contributions of ethnomethodology put forward by Bruno Latour. Hence, we propose an operational definition of the social construction of science based on actor‐network theory as an attempt to produce a more focused conceptualization of science as a social enterprise. This theoretical work enables us to bring out various facets of the social construction of science that, in our view, should be accounted for in classes to renew the school image of science in line with the characteristics of contemporary technosciences in the making . Finally, we illustrate how we can mobilize this understanding of science for secondary students. © 2009 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. Sci Ed 94 :743–759, 2010
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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.011 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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