MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3212139243 · doi:10.23977/aetp.2021.58017

Teaching Dangerous Philosophical Ideas to High School Students: Using the Film Rope and Immoralism as an Example

2021· article· en· W3212139243 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sijia Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Educational Technology and Psychology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicNietzsche, Schopenhauer, and Hegel
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRopeValue (mathematics)Philosophical methodologyCognitionEpistemologyTeaching philosophyPsychologyMathematics educationPedagogySociologyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Philosophy pedagogy undertakes great significance in high school teaching with its value in accelerating the maturation of students' cognitive abilities [1]. However, with the dangerous ideas hidden in philosophical arguments, teaching philosophy to high school students should be conducted with caution. Therefore, this paper focuses how to properly deal with those controversial philosophical ideas contained in high school courses, using the Immoralism in Nietzsche's philosophy as an instance.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score0.654

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.046
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Educational Technology and PsychologySame topicNietzsche, Schopenhauer, and HegelFrench-language works237,207