una mirada crítica sobre el "método de lipman": filosofía y pedagogía en acción
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As the responsible agent for teacher training in the framework of various research projects on the Philosophy for Children program in Quebec, and having facilitated many discussions with the focus on primary and secondary levels of education, the observations of Oscar Brenifier on several problematic aspects of P4C, linked to his critical view of the Lipman method, in fact inspired in me to a necessary reflection. His critique led me to consider Philosophy for Children in a new light, especially regarding certain modalities of implementation. Giving voice to children so they can express what they think is in fact a revolutionary innovation in schools, and this practice should be encouraged in the interests of a transformation of a school culture focused on knowledge transfer, in which the student is invited to talk only when answering the teacher’s questions. The possibility of expressing themselves freely, without the teacher's judgment is, in this sense, an important step that allows the student to recognize himself as a thinking subject and this is, without doubt, the dimension that inspires many people who search to introduce a space in the classroom for students’ voices and group discussion. From my point of view, a large part of the explanation of the distance between the application of Lipman’s initial philosophical-pedagogical project, and the style of application to which Brenifier attests, has to do with the fact that the modalities of training and support to the teachers have often been neglected. In many places in which the program is implemented, volunteers are in charge, and the local school authorities are not concerned to establish the necessary conditions for guaranteeing its rigor. But it is not just a problem of philosophical culture, as Brenifier seems to believe.
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 | 0.036 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.013 | 0.027 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".