Bibliographic record
Abstract
What are kindness and empathy, and why are they important to pedagogy? The traits of kindness and empathy are certainly desirable in one’s personality, but what bearing do they bring to the teaching and learning context? As discussed in Chapter One, notions of kindness and empathy as elements of love have roots in psychological, religious, and philosophical traditions of thought, although the two notions have different histories when it comes to pedagogy. As approaches to pedagogy began to be studied in more modern scholarly ways through research, kindness was recognised as being foundational to good teaching and learning (see Willard, 1929). In contrast, empathy has a much more recent history. Arnold (2006) points out that the idea of empathy has its roots in 19th century aesthetic philosophy, but that it was not until the mid 1980s that its links to pedagogy began to be seriously discussed. In that short time empathy has come to be seen by many as being of critical importance to meaningful learning (Schertz, 2006a).
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".