Bibliographic record
Abstract
We seek to discuss the adequacies and pertinences of the contents of the imaginary for the teaching of philosophy. Contents, such as: images in different pictorial and cultural statements; such as myths, constituted throughout the history of humanity and which were exemplified by Vernant (2006), with the narratives that shape mental frameworks; such as dreams, such as the specific expression of the unconscious, in Jung (2020), and desires, peculiar to individuals of contemporaneity permeated by technologies and their technological devices. The philosophy teacher is faced and interacts, in the theoretical and practical field of teaching, with contents of the imaginary, at the same time that his own figure characterizes a constructed image, it will also always be remodeling itself at all times. We exemplify with the "image of the self – oneself", which according to Jung (2014), we carry within us and which will always be symbolized historically. The reformulations of the figure of the teacher also occur due to different circumstances, especially external dynamics, such as technological processes that impose changes in postures, use of new apparatuses, new ideas and new devices arising from new technologies, theoretical and methodological variations, among other forms of changes, often contested or refuted. "The 'civilized' man reacts to new ideas in the same way, erecting psychological barriers that protect him from the shock brought by innovation" (Jung. 2020, p. 33). We propose, therefore, to explore the multiple possibilities and contributions of the contents of the imaginary in the teaching of philosophy at the high school level. The dynamics and ruptures generated at all times by new technological processes impose challenges on us in the daily lives of teaching that go beyond the lack of knowledge of technological tools and devices. Therefore, we seek to understand what is happening in the social environment and, at the same time, we seek self-knowledge, as a teacher, reviewing and revising the theoretical and methodological apparatuses that we have access to.
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 | 0.010 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| 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".