Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT. Encouraging critical thinking requires refinement and growth in the process. While educators often agree that critical thinking is valuable and should be a part of the curriculum there is a pervasive vagueness about what this means. In order that critical thinking be understood, that it be regarded as more than a cliché or slogan, sorne clarification is necessary. This article explores the nature of critical thinking through a discussion on the use of logic, the role of the critical spirit, dialogical reasoning, assessment of criteria, the relationship of content, and the relationship of caring and connections with criticism. RÉSUMÉ. Si les éducateurs s'entendent souvent pour dire que la pensée critique est une chose valable qui devrait être intégrée aux programmes d'études, elle n'en reste pas moins une notion vaguement définie. Certaines précisions s'imposent donc si l'on veut que cette notion soit bien comprise et ne soit plus considérée comme un simple cliché ou slogan. Cet article traite de la nature de la pensée critique par le biais d'une analyse portant sur l'usage de la logique, le rôle de l'esprit critique, le raisonnement dialogique, l'évaluation des critères, la pertinence du contenu et de l'attachement et les liens avec la critique.
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 | 0.021 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".