MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402109631 · doi:10.55016/ojs/jet.v25i3.44313

Science, pedagogie et art: des ressemblances et des differences

2018· article· en· W4402109631 on OpenAlexaff
Clermont Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of educational thought. · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedagogy: art or science? Inspired mainly by the works of Perelman, this ageold question is examined in a new light. Many elements of comparison are used to study the similarities and differences between science, pedagogy, and art. In some cases there are differences in their nature; in other cases there are differences in their degree. In short, while positivi stic science is oriented toward reality and contemporary art is directed to producing unpredictable effects, pedagogy focuses on the student. Pedagogy is seen not as a sc ience nor as an art, but rather as an exercise in persuasion aimed at courting the student's consent in order to win the learning game. Thus, the way we write when we are concerned with pedagogy will di ffer significantly from the way we write when we are concerned with art or science.

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)0.001
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.716
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.398
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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 topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207