Does One Stand to Gain by Combining Art with Philosophy? A Study of Fourth-Year College (13/14 Years of Age) Philosophical Writings Produced Within the PreCPhi/Philosophemes Corpus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Creative thinking is sometimes neglected by schools. Introducing philosophy in schools represents a commitment to balancing the development of logical and creative thinking, currently exercised only orally. In the present study, the focus is on writing. Firstly, the value of authentic pupil writings is underscored. The pupils and students studied wrote texts for “Adolescence et Société”, a magazine produced by researchers. 100 students’ works, written by philosophizing students in fourth-year college in France, culled from the PreCPhi/Philosophemes Corpus (1,300 texts collected from 43 classrooms) were studied in order to measure the progress of philosophizing students between a pre-test and a post-test following the introduction of a pedagogical tool that unites Art with Philosophy, Philo & Carto. Their writing skills were measured according to the following five dimensions: linguistic, philosophical, cognitive, reflective and creative. Performance measures, calculated on group averages and applied to the group’s variance between the pre- and the post-tests, were related to each dimension. Linguistic performance (presence of an introduction and conclusion) did not progress, remaining subject to pupils’ academic level. Philosophical, cognitive, creative and reflective performance increased significantly, or at least confirmed the trend. Reasoning, metaphors, conceptual differences and discourse ownership increased, while anecdotal examples decreased. These increases were accompanied by an increase in the post-test variance: gaps between the strongest and the weakest performances widened, except in the case of questioning, personal examples and generation of doubt, which were at the core of the effect produced. The study validates the fact that the Art and Philosophy link promises unprecedented educational prospects with regard to the production of early quality philosophical writings. This will require validation with other samplings.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".