Bibliographic record
Abstract
The knowledge-acquisition orientation/tradition that underpins schooling in western societies continues to enjoy an unquestioned place in the minds of most parents, policy makers, and professional educators. At the same time the importance and place of experience versus knowledge as an orientation or tradition for learning, awaits analysis. First, the need for a deeper understanding of what it means to learn in a human, technical, and social sense requires documentation and clarification. How and what one learns when being instinctive, is an elusive but culturally significant pedagogical terrain. This analysis will attempt to expose the assumptions that govern institutionalized forms of learning and explore a way forward that starts with the nature of peoples’ learning when it is self-directed. The irony of comparing technology mediated learning (TML) with the knowledge acquisition model which dominates school curriculum is that both are aberrations. This paper starts with a definition of institutionalized learning and proceeds to expose the assumptions upon which it is based. TML, if institutionalized in a formal curriculum sense, may never realize it’s potential. Sharing common assumptions about the nature of learning and the proper methodology for theorizing about it is the focus of this analysis.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".