MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408096416 · doi:10.32870/dse.v0i32.1587

Aprendiendo a ponerse en los zapatos del otro: empatía y su vínculo con el desarrollo socioemocional y cognitivo en el aula

2025· article· es· W4408096416 on OpenAlexaff
Marcos E. Domínguez-Arriola

Bibliographic record

VenueDiálogos sobre educación · 2025
Typearticle
Languagees
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducational theories and practices
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsHumanitiesArtPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.359 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiálogos sobre educaciónSame topicEducational theories and practicesFrench-language works237,207