Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUME. Cet article a pour objectif d'expliquer toute la portee philosophique du relativisme des valeurs en education et d'en eviter les impasses en degageant une these ou l'etablissement de valeurs demeure possible. Nous presentons d'abord le relativisme des valeurs comme la perte des fondements, le rejet du dogmatisme, celui de l'endoctrinement ainsi que la pseudo-neutralite qu'il revendique. Par la suite, en ecartant le relativisme comme conception satisfaisante de l'education aux valeurs, nous esquissons trois valeurs fondamentales de l'ecole de demain: l'universalite, la democratie et l'esprit critique. RELATIVISM OF VALUES IN EDUCATION: AN IMPASSE? ABSTRACT. This article aims to clarify the philosophical impact of the relativism of values in education and to avoid the ensuing deadlocks by elaborating a thesis where establishing values remains possible. The relativism of values is initially presented as the loss of fundamentals, the rejection of dogmatism of the indoctrinating sort, as well as the pseudo-neutrality relativism claims. Secondly in removing relativism as a satisfactory concept for values education, three fundamental values are outlined for tomorrow's schools: universality, democracy and critical thinking.
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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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".