Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This slim text (184 pages, including endnotes, references, and an index) makes a useful addition to the literature on K–12 curricular matters, specifically on the place of the arts and aesthetics in the curriculum. The book is, as the author proclaims, a manifesto that advocates for the teaching of the arts to “all school-aged students” (p. 1), more specifically, “aesthetic education . . . ought to be a compulsory part of education for all students” (p. 2). That is, for Dr. D'Olimpio, aesthetic education is the central concern, but she argues that the arts are the best avenue through which to introduce those concerns, both in practice (making/performing) and in reception (perception/interpretation). She does acknowledge that the arts are not the only avenue to aesthetic engagement, but they are the most reliable. D'Olimpio takes the position that the aim/purpose of education is ultimately to nurture individual “flourishing,” her interpretation of the Aristotelian notion of eudaimonia. Inclusion of aesthetic education may well contribute to a reorientation in curricular practice that has a wider focus and is more receptive to alternative perspectives (other than utilitarian, consumerist orientations) that might point to multiple avenues to the good life.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.022 | 0.004 |
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".