La pédagogie des langues-cultures comme science et comme art ; Homo sapiens, faber, loquens, ludens : l’intérité humaine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L’attitude la plus courante est de séparer les techniques, les sciences, les arts et les langues. Malheureusement, en perdant de vue leur origine commune, nous perdons les moyens de les associer dans nos apprentissages et nos pédagogies. Ceux-ci et celles-ci doivent se fonder dans l’intérité humaine. Cela rend nécessaire des références anthropologiques aux adaptations humaines et des références géo-historiques à leurs développements conjoints. C’est sur ces bases que sciences et arts pédagogiques vont permettre les échanges appropriés entre les personnes singulières en interaction dans et hors du groupe classe. Cette nouvelle pédagogie des langues-cultures les situe dans une humanité en devenir ouvert : concurrentiel, conflictuel, complémentaire. Elle pourra mieux se comprendre et se renforcer à partir d’œuvres comme celles de Giorgio Agamben, de François Jullien et d’Henri Van Lier. The pedagogy of languages as science and as art Homo sapiens, faber, loquens, ludens: The human interity Abstract: The most common attitude consists in separating techniques, sciences, arts and languages. Unfortunately, by losing sight of their common origin, we lose the means of associating them in our learning processes and our teaching practices. These have to base themselves in human “interity” (between-ness). It makes anthropological references necessary to human adaptation and historical and geographical references to their joint developments. It is on these bases that sciences and educational arts are going to allow the appropriate exchanges between the singular persons in interaction in and outside the class. This new pedagogy of the languages-cultures places them in a humanity in progress: competitive, conflicting, and complementary. It can be better understood and reinforced with works as those of Giorgio Agamben, François Jullien and Henri Van Lier.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".