MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625327429 · doi:10.7202/1073104ar

Imagination and Imaginative: A Trial Separation for Educational Practice

2020· article· en· W2625327429 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mark Frein

Bibliographic record

VenuePaideusis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeparation (statistics)PsychologyAestheticsArtPsychotherapistPsychoanalysisComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Imagination, which, in truth, Is but another name for absolute power And clearest insight, amplitude of mind, And Reason in her most exalted modeWilliam Wordsworth, The PreludeIt is safe to say that the importance of the concept of imagination in philosophy of mind has waned since Wordsworth wrote these lines, although a flip across various young children's television programs shows the continued significance of the concept in everyday educational discourse. 1Modern psychological and sociological models have largely replaced the faculty psychology of Romantic and pre-Romantic thinkers.Yet, prominent education theorists continue to press the issue. 2 In general, those educators who are concerned about imagination (or the lack of it) in schools are advocates of some form of liberal education, though they may diverge on the particulars of a good liberal education.The question of the imagination is not simply a practical question for education.It is a moral one.An "uneducated imagination" is not only a mind full of mush but a mind which may not be able to distinguish between fact and fiction, or right and wrong.My argument recognizes the importance of these concerns, but offers a practical solution to a practical problem.The practical problem is the education of the imagination.The practical solution involves replacing in educational discourse conceptions of the imagination with talk about what kinds of imaginative work should be encouraged in the classroom.The distinction be- tween "imagination" and the "imaginative" may seem, at first glance, to be only that between a noun and an adjective.I shall argue, however, that our preoccupation with the noun and continued reliance on Romantic conceptions of the imagination and its development blur, or overlook, important differences between the two words and offer little secure practical footing for educators.An understanding of the "imaginative" as the value of convention-testing work within a practice will, I think, provide a much less slippery conceptual footing on which to base educational efforts. A Relationship Gone SourWe can isolate a few features of the Romantic conception of the imagination, though we must realize that two levels of generalization are at hand-one concerning Romanticism, the other the Romantic imagination. 3 The faculty of the imagination was, for many Romantic thinkers, all-important in the capacity to reason, perceive, feel, and create.Combining elements from philosophers Hume, Kant, and the British associationists, poets William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge held imagination aloft as the noblest part of the mind. 4

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.051
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.124

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.051
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.100
Scholarly communication0.0190.025
Open science0.0020.011
Research integrity0.0070.021
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.402 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaideusisSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207