On the Formation of Critical Thinking of Students of a Higher Educational Institution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: The paper examined for the first time the features of the formation of systemic critical thinking of students of a higher educational institution, using systemic methods specially developed for this. Background: Unfortunately, there is practically no specific technology or even a method that specifically solves the problem of forming critical thinking. Nevertheless, each person who did not even receive the skills of critical thinking in the learning process possesses this type of thinking to some extent. Method: The method of systemic structuring and studying information about the objects in question solves important tasks of developing ways of thinking that are very relevant for future specialists. Implementing the methods of systemic cognition of the studied objects and the surrounding reality ensured the development of the systematic knowledge, skills, and systemic and other relevant ways of thinking and a systematic approach in cognitive and other activities. Results: The peculiarity of what has been said is that students in the process of implementing this method learn and develop simultaneously the proposed types of activities (actions) and the corresponding ways of thinking, including critical ones, determined by them. The particularly important result of the implementation of a systematic approach and systematic methods developed on its basis is the formation of systematic-critical thinking. Conclusion: The concept of systematic-critical thinking has been developed. Using a systematic approach as a scientific method allowed to significantly transform not only theory and practice but also existing traditional technologies of the formation of critical thinking.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".