Experience of support in the light of the concept of Max van Manen’s pedagogical relationship
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article takes a closer look at some important aspects of the ethical meaning of the experience of support in a pedagogical relationship in the light of the achievements of modern phenomenological pedagogy. The presented refl ection will refer to methodological proposals as well as ethical and pedagogical refl ection of one of the world’s most important representatives of pedagogy inspired by phenomenology – Max van Manen, a retired professor at the University of Alberta in Canada. The main goal of the issue is to deepen understanding of the nature and importance of support in the process of building and developing a pedagogical relationship and in the context of refl ection on the concept of pedagogical tact. Refl ection on the pedagogical relationship indicates the need to care for a deeper understanding of the phenomenon of support in the process of upbringing and education. The proposed attempt to explore the importance of support in a pedagogical relationship refers to the ethical and pedagogical dimension of refl ection on the importance of heteronomy and vulnerability of a child and adult responsibility.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".