The complementarity between art appreciation and philosophy for children in the process of climate change education: sensitive and engaged approaches
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This reflection explores the importance of art and philosophy for children in environmental education, focusing on the role of aesthetic appreciation in raising awareness about climate change. By revisiting classical critical approaches such as Panofsky’s iconography, Feldman’s critical method, and Anderson’s perceptual model, the analysis demonstrates how these methods, enriched by subjective interaction with artworks (Rose, 2022), can mobilize emotions and encourage ecological citizenship engagement. Contemporary art, particularly that which addresses ecological issues, serves as a powerful tool for provoking critical and affective reflections on current challenges. In addition, philosophy for children, based on approaches like Lipman’s, enables young people to reflect on the ethical implications raised by art and climate issues, stimulating both intellectual and emotional engagement. Together, art combined with philosophical reflection proves to be an essential pedagogical lever for training responsible citizens in the face of environmental challenges. Art, particularly that which addresses ecological issues, becomes a vector for critical and affective reflection, essential in climate change 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 | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.042 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".