MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994723842 · doi:10.5380/nesef.v8i2.70927

LA PHILOSOPHIE POUR LES ENFANTS, ÉDUCATION À LA DÉMOCRATIE: L’IMPORTANCE DE LA PENSÉE CRÉATIVE / FILOSOFIA PARA CRIANÇAS, EDUCAÇÃO PARA A DEMOCRACIA: A IMPORTÂNCIA DO PENSAMENTO CRIATIVO

2019· article· fr· W2994723842 on OpenAlexaff
Nadia Beaudry

Bibliographic record

VenueRevista do NESEF · 2019
Typearticle
Languagefr
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy and Historical Thought
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesPolitical sciencePhilosophySociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pourquoi la Philosophie pour les enfants, conçue et fondée par Matthew Lipman, a-t-elle sa place à l’école? Parce qu’elle développe la pensée critique, dit-on souvent. Il est rare qu’on évoque la pensée créativepour justifi er la pratique de la Philosophie pour enfants. Pourtant, c’est elle, la pensée créative, qui donne à la recherche philosophique menée en communauté une dimension sensible (concrète), elle qui lui permet de mettre en œuvre une réfl exion libre, à l’extérieur des cadres prééta-blis, et elle encore qui assure le caractère expansif de la recherche. Si, comme le prétend son fondateur, la Philosophie pour les enfants est bien une éducation à la démocratie, alors il est urgent de reconnaître le rôle qu’y joue la pensée créative. Ce rôle n’est pas moins important que celui de la pensée critique, qu’il complète. En effet, si la Philoso-phie pour les enfants peut former des citoyens conscients et proactifs, c’est notamment qu’elle apprend aux enfants à réfl échir davantage à partir de leur sensibilité et qu’elle les encourage à mettre en suspens certaines règles et certains critères pour mieux expérimenter, innover et progresser. Por que a Filosofia para Crianças, concebida e fundada por Matthew Lipman, deve ocupar um lugar na escola? Costuma-se dizer que é porque ela desenvolve o pensamento crítico. É raro mencionar o pen-samento criativo para justifi car a prática da fi losofi a para crianças. No entanto, é ele, o pensamento criativo, que confere à pesquisa fi losófi ca realizada em comunidade uma dimensão sensível (concreta), que lhe permite implementar uma refl exão livre, fora das estruturas pré-estabe-lecidas, e ainda o que garante a expansão da pesquisa. Se, como afi rma seu fundador, a Filosofi a para Crianças é de fato uma educação para a democracia, é urgente reconhecer o papel que o pensamento criativo desempenha nela. Esse papel não é menos importante que o do pensa-mento crítico, que o completa. Embora a Filosofi a para crianças possa educar cidadãos conscientes e proativos, ela ensina as crianças a pensar mais sobre sua sensibilidade e as incentiva a desenvolver certas regras e critérios para uma melhor experimentação, inovação e progresso.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.801
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRevista do NESEFSame topicPhilosophy and Historical ThoughtFrench-language works237,207