Verbal Manifestation of Critical Thought: Transversal Study from Age 10 to 18 in France
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article studies the verbal manifestation of critical thought in a school context. Four modes of thought - logical,creative, responsible, and metacognitive – accompanied by six epistemological perspectives, are studied from 1,730pupils turns to speak analyzed in eight class groups. The pupils dialog about freedom. Quantitatively and gradually thecollective thought gives the lion's share to the manifestation of logical, followed by creative and then responsiblethought, and very little to that of metacognitive thought. The study reveals a significant developmental effect forlogical and responsible thought – to the advantage of the girls. While each mode of thought evolves following its owndevelopmental path, the epistemological congruence that emerges between the logical and responsible modes ofthought on the one hand and responsible and creative on the other seems perhaps debatable. The results lead to apedagogic proposal which consists in proposing to introduce a cognitive activity of doubt, not spontaneously adoptedby the pupils, to favor the advent of a form of critical thinking more balanced as concerns the modes of thoughts ofwhich it composed.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".