Bibliographic record
Abstract
The paper that follows was read by William Pinar in 1976 at the Curriculum Conference in Milwaukee (United States). It is a response to a paper presented by Elliot Eisner titled “The Curriculum Field Today: Where we, Where we were, and Where we are Going”. From a perspective of intellectual history, I claim that it is with this paper that Pinar provoked a turning point in the field of curriculum studies, one that brought the focus of attention back to the subjectively existing individual at the center of educational experience and opened the way for a more careful and dedicated consideration of the problem of subjective reconstruction. While this notion was foreshadowed by Huebner, it is in this presentation that Pinar articulates clearly the importance of the concrete subject: a flesh and blood person appears. In this sense, the field of curriculum studies returns, however inadvertently at this point, to the continental views on education as formation.
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 | 0.005 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".