Bibliographic record
Abstract
In "The Use and Abuse of the History of Educational Philosophy," Avi Mintz suggests that philosophy of education's identity issues might be addressed by paying greater attention to its history. 1 To support this idea, he notes that history has received little attention, citing evidence that most articles in the field do not mention a "great thinker," and even fewer a pre-twentieth century one.He also criticizes the idea that greater practical relevance would resolve the field's issues, because this would distort it by serving extrinsic rather than intrinsic interests.In this vein, he argues against the "history + implications" approach, which may seem historical but, as it is driven by present relevance, is likely to distort the work of the "great thinker" being considered.Mintz concludes that paying more attention to history would bring a number of benefits.It would: reveal limitations of present thought; help avoid reinventing the wheel; provide a common vocabulary; suggest internal criteria of goodness; make disciplinary expertise clearer; teach students to wrestle with good arguments; and contribute to understanding vital human problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".