La pensee critique en science: presentation d 'un modele iconique en vue d 'une definition operationnelle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, a critical review of literature is provided and different ways of defining critical thinking in science are explored: A tentative iconic model and an operational definition are proposed in order to stimulate exploratory observations and, eventually, the development of teaching strategies in science taking into account critical thinking. In our model, three main components of critical thinking are identified: the affective component (dispositions), the cognitive component (knowledge, basic skills, high order skills) , and the behavioral component (contextualised or generalised behaviors). The cognitive component is embedded in the affective component which modifies the development as well as the use of critical thinking skills and knowledge. The links between the environment and these critical thinking components are described as well as their mutual influences. This model emphasizes the key role of affectivity in the development and actualization of critical thinking in everyday life as a critical spirit.
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 | 0.018 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| 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".