MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402104817 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v32i2.52523

Shapes and Spaces: Inside Joseph Lancaster's "Monitorial" Laboratory

2018· article· en· W4402104817 on OpenAlexaff
Neville F. Newman

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhotography and Visual Culture
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this article I examine the nature of discipline in the monitorial school. Recognizing that much post-Discipline and Punish research has concentrated on contemporary educational institutions, I return to Lancaster's original school model not simply to identify the presence of discipline, but to describe its function. In other words I define what discipline is. Particular attention is paid to the architecture of the school, showing how the design of the school room operates to discipline and place the pupil. I also examine in detail two engravings that appear in Lancaster's treatise, The British System of Education (1810) in order to suggest that an identifiable anxiety underlies his ostensible confidence in the monitorial system. Finally, I look at the influence which the British monitorial school had on its North American counterpart and advance theories for the system's failure.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.735
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.270 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of educational thought.Same topicPhotography and Visual CultureFrench-language works237,207