HUMAN BEING DEVELOPMENT: RESEARCH PROTOCOL FOR A HOLISTIC AND COMPLEX REVIEW ON THE SOCIAL DIMENSION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to lay the foundation for the building blocks of the social development of human beings in a contemporary democratic society; more broadly, it focuses on the research protocol with used to conduct a holistic and complex review on the social dimension of the human being. From a cross-reading of the thoughts of ancient and contemporary authors, a number of structural, conceptual and dynamic elements related to this subject emerged. This article, based on Bronfenbrenner's ecological approach, establishes a first foundation of knowledge synthesis on the social dimension of human beings. Initial Warnings. Current knowledge of the requirements of good development and good functioning of human beings allows for the definition of new guidelines to redirect our education systems towards the implementation of education and training programs that allow every human to better know oneself and to realize optimally their potential. We want to put into perspective the knowledge generated by several authors to synthesize their approaches and draw the guidelines for this new orientation that is necessary and more respectful of human development. This article is a proposal for the basis of work on which the experts of different fields mentioned in the text will be able to continue the reflection and co-build this holistic framework with us. More than ever, we believe in the importance of this exercise to redefine humanism and education that truly places human beings in what they are, and is most fundamental and in the optimal conditions for them to succeed.
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 | 0.230 | 0.315 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.052 | 0.027 |
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".