Rapports aux savoirs et pratiques critiques en communauté de recherche philosophique : quels enjeux pour les élèves et les enseignants ?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En prenant appui sur des données de recherche issues d’études menées depuis 2008, cet article examine les relations entre la pensée critique et les rapports aux savoirs des élèves et des enseignants. Il ressort, notamment, que l’exercice d’une pensée critique semble lié aux rapports aux savoirs et que ces derniers varient en fonction des concepts et des disciplines étudiées. Suivant cela, l’auteur fait ressortir des défis et enjeux avec lesquels doivent composer les élèves et les enseignants lorsqu’ils s’engagent dans des dialogues philosophiques, compte tenu du fait, notamment, que les savoirs qui y sont discutés relèves d’horizons disciplinaires variés et que les dynamiques d’enseignement-apprentissage à l’intérieur de ce contexte sont parfois en rupture profonde par rapport l’expérience scolaire traditionnelle.
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 | 0.077 | 0.115 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.069 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.027 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".