Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term 'education' has become omnipresent but also a vague one; we use it for what happens to children at home, at school, at the community center, and other places.We sometimes also use 'education' for what happens to adults, both in and outside of the context of schooling.But more than losing coherence, 'education' unfortunately starts to fade as other terms and their accompanied discourses surface and overshadow it.The purpose of this essay is to review and briefly analyze these discourses, as well as, in more length, a serious call to completely get rid of 'education.' Together, these phenomena threaten the vitality of education.Instead of an important and respected notion that signifies depth, richness, and complexity, as well as dilemmas and paradoxes, it increasingly becomes diminished, shallow and empty. POPULIST CONCEPTION OF EDUCATIONFollowing what Bialystok termed the 'populist' conception of philosophy, 1 I see the populist conception of education as a simplistic or one-dimensional usage of the term 'education,' while ignoring its deep and complex facets.It is usually accompanied with a sense of acquiring something that is considered valuable.Similar to the populist conception of philosophy, the populist conception of education exists on a continuum.In the colloquial usage, 'education' just refers to knowledge, as in phrases such as "educate yourself."In a more formal usage, but one that reveals an instrumental attitude to education, it signifies credentials, in particular degrees, such as the phrase "college education," sayings such as "I'm going to get an education and a decent job," and the title "Education" in a resume or curriculum vitae. 2 Instrumental sentiment is evident also within the professional realm
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".