Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article examines the phenomenon of democratic education and the role of democratization of education in modern society. The subject of this research define the main goal: it is necessary to assess the level of impact of democratic education upon the formation of critical thinking among younger generation. Within the framework of this article, analysis was conducted on the theoretical works of the researchers of humanities, legislative documents and reports dedicated to the questions of education policy. The author also covers the examples of practical implementation of the principles of democratic education in history and modernity; as well as considers the experience of such democratic schools and Summerhill and Sudbury Valley. The conclusion is made that the principles of democratic schools are not always widely implemented in the society. However, despite the criticism of democratic education worldwide, the principles of democratization of education are used ubiquitously from elementary education to higher education. This is testified by the examples of the successfully functioning democratic schools. Namely democratic and democratized education lay the foundation for upbringing of the national members of civil society due to the flexibility and adjustment of education to the needs of modern society. Such school can be justifiably considered as one of the best models for the development of critical thinking among younger generation due to holistic development of children.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".