Phenomenological Approach and Bakhtinian Dialogism: Epistemological Tensions and Methodological Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I develop a methodological reflection based on research concerning the role of the history of mathematics in the context of pre-service teacher training. The purpose of the study was to describe the experience of six prospective secondary school mathematics teachers engaged in the reading of historical texts in a history of mathematics course. In the process of research, epistemological tensions emerged between, on the one hand, the need to account for a portion of the participants' intimate personal experience by deploying a phenomenological approach, and on the other hand, the convocation of a historical-cultural perspective of mathematics education focusing on social interaction and artifacts. The answers formulated in response to these epistemological tensions were methodological. I analyze in what way these tensions played a reflexive and emulator role developing both the research methodology and an innovative description adapted to the context of the study, i.e., a polyphonic narration.
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 | 0.082 | 0.073 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".