MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154923486 · doi:10.24908/eoe-ese-rse.v8i0.579

Educational Discourse and Educational Practice

2008· article· en· W2154923486 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEncounters in Theory and History of Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational theories and practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflection (computer programming)EpistemologyEngineering ethicsSociologyEducational sciencePedagogyMathematics educationComputer sciencePsychologyEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article sets out to systemise a series of reflections on the nature of educational knowledge and the way of producing it, placing special emphasis on the practical sense and regulatory content of this type of knowledge. The reflection is developed in three parts. In the first, certain symptoms are detected and explained that reveal the current situation of educational science. In the second part, a concept of the discipline of Education is explained along with three different ways of creating educational knowledge in line with its relationship to educational practice. Finally, mention is made of a kind of Decalogue on the emphases we consider ought to guide the construction of such knowledge today.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.670
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.351 · 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