El aprendizaje visto como saber y devenir: una mirada desde la teoría de la objetivación
Bibliographic record
Abstract
En este artículo presento una concepción histórico-cultural del saber y del aprendizaje. Empiezo argumentando que los conceptos de saber y aprendizaje que escoge una teoría educativa en general están lejos de ser inocentes o antojadizos. Arguyo que dichos conceptos se encuentran anclados, implícita o explícitamente, en un proyecto social en el cual se apoya la teoría. Esta idea es ilustrada a través de un corto análisis del constructivismo. El resto del artículo gira alrededor del proyecto social en el que toma apoyo la teoría de la objetivación. De ese proyecto deriva la necesidad de conceptualizar el saber no como entidad psicológica subjetiva, sino como entidad cultural e histórica. También, de ese proyecto deriva la necesidad de imaginar el aprendizaje como proceso que, yendo más allá del saber, se adentra en la esfera del ser y su devenir.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
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.
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".