Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to Kant, self-direction requires that one’s reasoning power reigns supreme, a view that has, for decades, supported “stand alone” critical thinking classes. In contrast, some argue for the need to reason together across difference hence the growing popularity of Communities of Philosophical Inquiry. It will be argued here that this focus is still too narrow. If “togetherness” is necessary for excellent reasoning, since, clearly, we are emotional beings as well as reasoning beings, such contexts requires that we take responsibility for managing the emotional environment in which that reasoning takes place. Such responsibility is sorely lacking in contemporary culture wars that condone self-righteous insult-flinging, define attempts to self-shield as evidence of deserved guilt, and that perpetrate widespread emotional fragility in the name of safety. Hence, it will be argued that it is imperative that we stop reproducing the error attributed to Descartes of assuming a quasi-disconnect between mind and body by embracing educational strategies that focus entirely on perfecting reason. The goal, rather, must be to educate so that we all take responsibility for creating “we contexts” by ensuring that the emotional landscape to which we inevitably contribute is amenable to the possibility of reasonable interchange and self-direction.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".