Bibliographic record
Abstract
Matthew Lipman’s Thinking in Education develops an approach to philosophical inquiry with children (PwC) that claims to develop critical, creative and caring thinking. With Lipman, these kinds of thinking are primarily tied to analytic-logical commitments, and as such, his approach concerns only one way to conceptualize thinking. To address this issue and create space for another understanding, I introduce the concept of affect based on the work of the French philosopher Gilles Deleuze. From a theoretical perspective, affect helps to deepen the relationship between thinking, the body and experience in PwC; in addition, from a practical standpoint, it expands and enriches facilitation practices and curriculum design. To explore affect, I first show why PwC would benefit from such a theoretical expansion while also looking at connections already present within the literature on PwC. After a brief overview of affect theory and some of its initial applications to education, I propose a reading of Deleuzian affect augmented by thinkers like Claire Colebrook and Brian Massumi. Finally, I explore philosophical inquiry through affect and suggest how facilitation practices and curriculum design can respond in lieu of this conceptualization. This response examines several areas: inquiry, concepts, the community and ethical-political engagement.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".