Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedagogical activity, be it of parents or teachers, continuously requires us to meet children's and youngsters' deep ethical needs. In our daily relationships with them, recognition is one of the most frequent and essential ingredients of our educational activity. But, what does being recognized mean? When does this everyday practice become genuinely pedagogical? This phenomenological inquiry explores pedagogical recognition, an experience of an essentially ethical sense. Through our words, actions, decisions, etc., we offer children and young people effective learning experiences about what is good and right in our human world. Moreover, genuine recognition allows us to discover the personal worth and uniqueness of every child and young person entrusted to us. Recognition deals with the very being of people revealed through their capabilities in action. In this experience, the educator plays the decisive role. Thanks to our pedagogical responsibility and influence, we have the power to recognize; a power that has been given to us by the child and that can be observed when the transformational effect of recognition occurs. Pedagogical authority is the foundation of recognition as well as educational intentionality. The pedagogical significance of this practice requires every educator to evaluate and to improve the ways of doing this effectively, especially by thinking carefully about every person's singularity and by developing awareness of our ethical personality and our embodied language. It may lead us to being recognition.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.025 | 0.010 |
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".