MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Political Doctrine, Philosophy, and the Value of Education: The Legacy of Isocrates and the Socratic Alternative

2018· article· en· W348978407 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEducational Challenges and Innovations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Winnipeg
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSocratic methodDoctrinePoliticsValue (mathematics)EpistemologyPhilosophyPhilosophy of educationPolitical scienceLawHigher educationMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is concerned with the question, How ought the value of education be decided and defined? There are, in Western educational thought and practice, two answers to this question, the Isocratic and the Socratic. Contrary to most textbooks in the history of education, the Isocratic tradition of educational thought has most influenced Western education, and now constitutes the accepted view even among those who seek to critique the Western tradition. In the dominant Isocratic tradition, education is regarded as a political enterprise, and the value of education is defined relative to political doctrine. In the Socratic view, education is defined as a philosophic enterprise, and the value of education is defined as autonomous and internal to it. The structure of these two modes of examining educational value is outlined. The paper concludes that the question of how we decide what the value of education ought to be must once be asked from the perspective of these two alternatives, and that a recovery of the neglected history of educational philosophy and ideas will be a necessary part of this.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.865
Threshold uncertainty score0.562

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.303 · 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