MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726321075 · doi:10.7202/1072796ar

Educational Authority and Manipulation

2020· article· en· W2726321075 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Tapio Puolimatka

Bibliographic record

VenuePaideusis · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical Race Theory in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBusinessComputer sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though a culture which rejects objective values cannot justify educational authority, it cannot function without it.Consequently, it tends to resorts to hidden forms of authority which are more manipulative than overt authority.Covert forms of authority subject people to normalizing judgment to detect signs of deviancy while getting them involved in discourses and practices that produce new desires suitable for the frictionless functioning of society.Epistemic authority tends to deteriorate to "regimes of truth" that control beliefs through power politics.Education involves children in practices that are regarded as valuable.It assumes that some practices are preferable to others and that students ought to be guided to the valued alternatives.This means that some choices are made for children instead of just letting them act on their preferences.In that sense education presupposes authority, both deontic and epistemic.Deontic authority is concerned with the authority to give orders, epistemic authority is concerned with competence.Teachers need deontic authority to coordinate the pedagogical situation.In addition, teachers need to be epistemic authorities: they ought to master the subject matter and the pedagogical knowledge needed for teaching.The crucial question is whether such an educational authority can be justified.That is, whether there are valuable practices and genuine knowledge, whether their value or validity can be established, and whether there are ways of coordinating social activity to reach the valued goals.To use authority for the benefit of the student presupposes a conception of what is really good for her.If the good is something completely subjective, something relative to individual choice, the exercise of authority is an attempt to mould students according to the preferences of those in authority.Ultimately it does not make a difference whether it is the interests of the "I" (the individual teacher) or the "we" (the group she represents or society) which determines the nature of the manipulation.In the absence of objective values, the exercise of educational authority tends to become manipulative.The argument of this paper begins by focusing on some fundamental reasons for the necessity of authority for complex practices like education.It then proceeds to discuss whether educational authority can be justified.I argue that an adequate

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.054
Scholarly communication0.0090.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.062
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.332 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePaideusisSame topicCritical Race Theory in EducationFrench-language works237,207