Attention et pensée critique dans la discussion philosophique avec les enfants : une pratique de care intellectuel
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Les pratiques de discussion philosophique avec les enfants poursuivent deux objectifs qui peuvent apparaître comme entrant en tension: prêter attention à la parole des enfants (ce qui constitue une forme de care) et développer la pensée critique. Dans cet article, je défends l’idée que l’attention peut au contraire contribuer à développer la pensée critique, si elle est considérée non seulement dans sa dimension de bienveillance, mais aussi dans sa dimension épistémique. À travers l’analyse d’ateliers menés dans le cadre d’une enquête de terrain, je montre que la pratique de la philosophie avec les enfants met en oeuvre cette double conception de l’attention. Je propose ainsi de considérer la discussion philosophique avec les enfants comme une pratique de care intellectuel.
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 | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.013 |
| 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".