La interdisciplinaridad: por un matrimonio abierto de la razón, de la mano y del corazón
Bibliographic record
Abstract
El propósito de este artículo es hacer resaltar la existencia de tres conceptos distintos de la interdisciplinaridad y de su uso en el campo de la educación. El primer concepto, europeo francófono, fijado en dimensiones epistemológicas de los saberes disciplinarios y en la racionalidad científica, puede ser calificado de lógico racional, centrado en la búsqueda de significado. El segundo, norteamericano anglófono, es de tipo metodológico y remite a una preocupación de primera instancia por el «saber hacer»; se trata de la lógica instrumental, orientada hacia la búsqueda de la funcionalidad. En cuanto al tercer concepto, que se observa sobre todo en Brasil, se inscribe en la perspectiva fenomenológica, privilegia las dimensiones humanas y afectivas, y expresa una lógica subjetiva dirigida a la búsqueda del sí. Veremos cómo se relacionan estos tres conceptos y cómo pueden utilizarse en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".