Bibliographic record
Abstract
Is it possible to bridge the gulf between East-and West-block philosophers of education?In order to answer this question properly, we need to examine the nature and the size of the gulf we wish to bridge.In this paper, I will attempt to outline the assumptions and methods used by educational philosophers who work in these two worlds. Rational education: the crusade against indoctrinationPhilosophers in the West are not the only group that reflects on education.In the 70s, a flock of sociologists intruded on this peaceful and undisturbed domain of conservatives.I will not touch on them for, while sociological approaches discuss values, aims of education, overt and covert curricula, and so on, they derive their theories from empirical research and, thus, are very limited in scope.Educational philosophy is concerned with a more abstract level of thinking and the statements provided by philosophers are less bound by hie et nunc circumstances.Interestingly enough, sociologists in the British and North American educational arena, seem to take seats on the left, while philosophers settle on the right.The reason for this seems to lie in the fact that marxist or socialist analyses are, by almost definition, based on the historical assessment of a stratified society (good enough cause for using sociological methods), while philosophical investigation, due to its higher level of abstraction, requires steady conceptual grounds not subject to the whims of politics and history.The pivotal point of this history-proof philosophy is rationality.No English/ American philosophy of education survives the savage scrutiny of colleagues if the notion of rationality is not at the center of thinking.(See the works of R. Barrow, A. Flew, R.M. Hare, W. Hare, P.H. Hirst, R.S. Peters, A.R. White and others.)In philosophical parlance, rationality is a necessary, though not sufficient, condition for a proper educational theory.Choosing rationality as the sine qua non of philosophy has cer- tain implications.First, the philosophy will be individualistic in the sense that it will primarily be concerned with the individual human 2(2}, Spring, 1989
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 | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".