Aprendiendo a ponerse en los zapatos del otro: empatía y su vínculo con el desarrollo socioemocional y cognitivo en el aula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to think empathically develops early in life through interactions with others. For this reason, schools have a fundamental role in the formation of empathy. This article examines the critical role of empathic skills in the socioemotional and academic development of students within the contemporary educational context. An updated, evidence-based definition of empathy is adopted, which involves a set of interdependent cognitive processes such as emotional contagion, empathic concern, perspective-taking, and emotional modulation. Employing this conceptual framework, the existing literature on the link between empathic skills and other variables of socioemotional development and academic success in students at different educational stages is analyzed. This review indicates that there are positive associations between empathic skills and various social and academic competencies. Moreover, processes of cognitive empathy appear as a protective factor against students' academic burnout. Finally, potential strategies to foster the development of empathic skills in the classroom are discussed; the role of teachers in modeling these skills is emphasized, and the Roots of Empathy intervention program and its outcomes are analyzed.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".