Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper draws on Hannah Arendt’s notion of “dark times” to explore how philosophy for/with children (P4wC) can serve as a space for sustaining plurality and connection in a politically sensitive context. Using retrospective qualitative analysis of autoethnographic data, we examine the lived experience of a P4wC facilitator navigating the challenges, tensions, and ethical dilemmas of conducting philosophical dialogue with young adult female students during the 2022 unrest in Iran. Through a philosophical reflection on these experiences, we proposed two essential roles for P4wC facilitators in politically sensitive environments. First, the “Light-Keeper” preserves thoughtfulness and hope, ensuring that philosophical inquiry remains possible despite external and internal pressures. Second, the “Light-Intensity manager” carefully balances the freedom of inquiry with the cultural and political sensitivities of the context, safeguarding the long-term sustenance of the community of inquiry. Although these roles may seem paradoxical, they reflect the complex realities of facilitating dialogue in sensitive or repressive conditions. By engaging in a shared reflection, facilitators themselves, too, can resist isolation and contribute to a broader discourse on philosophy of education in dark times.
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 | 0.005 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".