Bibliographic record
Abstract
The author perceives contemporary educational thought as polarized along two major axes: utilitarianism and holism. Utilitarianism is the result of a conglomeration of doctrines influenced by Cartesian dualism, Newtonian mechanism, and social Darwinism; all of these share a fragmentary and reductionist view of reality. In opposition to that view, holism, in both its rational and intuitive forms, tends to see reality as a global and unified whole. The traditionalist position, in search of a renewed foundation where relativism prevails, oscillates between these two major axes. The author suggests the Taoist principles of yin and yang, the complementary poles of reality, as a background for his analysis. He presents a cyclical model of change in which interaction between the yin and yang polarities results in a cultural evolution wherein equilibrium and disorder alternate. The evaluation of recent trends in education is analyzed and epistemological issues are raised. Finally, the author underlines the potential influences of both the utilitarian and holistic axes on the outcome of the current crisis in education.
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 | 0.012 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".