The Problem of Tradition: Teaching Research in the Shadow of the History of Science
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is a research tradition that builds heavily upon traditions that began in the early days of the Enlightenment. One manifestation of the tradition is in the search for, and treatment of, evidence. The paper will present a content analysis of the syllabi of research-related courses in ALA-accredited master’s programs, which demonstrates the reliance on the Enlightenment materialist tradition. Preliminary examination suggests reliance on, among other things, behavioristic observations of information seekers and users, cognitive investigation that is limited to eliminativist or reductionist methods, or constructivist approaches that likewise reduce analytical possibilities.Il existe une tradition de recherche dont les fondements remontent au début du siècle des Lumières. Une manifestation de cette tradition se retrouve dans la recherche et dans le traitement de la preuve. Cet article présente une analyse de contenu des plans de cours des cours de recherche enseignés dans le cadre des programmes de maîtrise agréés par l'ALA, démontrant le recours à la tradition matérialiste des Lumières. Un examen préliminaire laisse entendre l'usage notamment d'observations béhavioristes des chercheurs et des utilisateurs d'information, d'investigations cognitives limitées aux méthodes éliminativistes ou réductionnistes ou d'approches constructivistes qui réduisent d'autant les possibilités d'analyse.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.012 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".