Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the best of my knowledge; no one has ever exploited the relationship between Democracy and Education and Dewey’s logical theory as presented in these other works. Doing so not only lends textual evidence to the important relationship between Dewey’s logical theory and Democracy and Education; it reinforces Dewey’s claim that Democracy and Education best represents his philosophy in general. Democracy and Education evinces arguments regarding logical theory that Dewey hadn’t yet made in his published works on logical theory. These arguments concern the role and scope of scientific method in the context of the practice of teaching and the social psychology of learning. Attention to scientific method and to the habits and dispositions of the student-as-learner will be my focus. I argue that these arguments find their way into Dewey’s later logical theory; represented in Logic: the Theory of Inquiry (1938) under the rubrics of ‘the existential matrix of inquiry’ and ‘social inquiry.’ In particular; the accounts of habit; adaptation; and interaction in Chapter 2 of Dewey’s Logic; together with the account of social problems and their resolution in a genuine determination as discussed in Chapter 24; are indebted to Chapters 11–14 of Democracy and Education. And for this reason alone; Democracy and Education should be considered among the most important of Dewey’s influences regarding the development of his logical theory.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| 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".