Is our history of educational philosophy mostly wrong?
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
There are two very different accounts of the history of educational philosophy and ideas presently available. One account is the work of historical scholars and classicists, and is based on thorough historical research. The other account is the work of educationists and philosophers, and is generally based on little or no historical research in the history of educational thought. Consequently, the prevailing accounts of the history of educational philosophy produced by educationists and philosophers over the past 50 years are remarkably inaccurate. The inaccuracies are of two kinds: (1) the unequalled influence of the educational ideas and practices of Isocrates, Plato’s rival, is almost wholly unrecognised, and (2) knowledge of the tradition of autonomous educational thought has been lost. Contemporary educational philosophy has much to gain, both in new methods and ideas and in the recovery of some of the academic credibility it still lacks, by recovering the legacy of Isocrates and the tradition of autonomous educational thought.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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