MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2396561298 · doi:10.5539/ies.v9n6p15

Integrating Psychology and Philosophy: A Brief Analysis of The Blessing of a Skinned Knee

2016· article· en· W2396561298 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yali Hu

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Education Studies · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicJewish Identity and Society
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBlessingGratitudeJudaismPleasureModerationMaterialismPsychologyVirtueHappinessEnvironmental ethicsSociologySocial psychologySocial scienceEpistemologyTheologyPhilosophyPsychotherapist

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<p class="apa">A brief analysis of <em>The Blessing of a Skinned Knee</em> gives a glimpse of beliefs and practices cherished by the family that attempts to employ Jewish teachings to raise children. The child nurturing and rearing practices are in a degree enlightening and supplementing the existing literature in education. Prevention with the inspiration from time-tested lessons of philosophy drawn from Judaism and psychology theory could bring about a marked positive impact on child rearing. Three cornerstone principles of Jewish living—moderation, celebration and sanctification are frames of reference in developing philosophy of cultivating children. Moderation helps achieve the balance between what parents ought to do and what they should let go and tells priorities and values that make peace of mind accessible in the materialistic, anxious and highly competitive world. Gratitude is the most valuable character trait children need, for being grateful and celebrating what they are granted by life, they will always see the most beautiful world and stay with the most peaceful mind, both of which are essential to the pleasure of life. Sanctification indicates that all daily enterprises are holy and therefore demand devotion and commitment.</p>

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.281
Threshold uncertainty score0.196

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.445
Teacher spread0.373 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Education StudiesSame topicJewish Identity and SocietyFrench-language works237,207