Non-canonical philosophy and Cordel literature in schools
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the potential of literatura de cordel, a Brazilian folk poetry tradition, as a non-canonical resource for philosophical inquiry in educational settings. While Philosophy for Children (P4C) and related movements have increasingly emphasised the role of emotion in philosophical education, non-Western literary traditions remain underexplored in this context. Situated against the backdrop of Ontario, Canada’s ‘back-to-basics’ approach to learning, which prioritises standardised literacy over philosophical inquiry, we propose a non-canonical philosophy (NCP)approach that promotes non-Western literary traditions and fosters critical thinking, creativity and emotional awareness in young learners. Drawing on the distinct features of Cordel literature—its oral-poetic form, its engagement with social and ethical themes, and its capacity to evoke emotional and imaginative responses—we suggest that it offers a valuable tool for philosophical inquiry with children. Through an analysis of Cordel’s historical and cultural significance, exemplified by Leandro Gomes de Barros’ evocative poetry, we suggest how these texts might provoke philosophical reflection on topics like time and identity. While speculative and context-dependent, this proposal invites educators to consider how non-canonical texts can enhance existing pedagogical practices, offering a pathway to more inclusive and affectively engaged learning environments.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".