Alfabetización en ciencia y pensamiento crítico en el aula (Morandín, Villanueva y Romero): una revisión crítica y propositiva
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RESUMEN Este ensayo cuestiona la noción de que las habilidades racionales y analíticas sean efecto de la alfabetización científica y explica que, en cambio, son producto del Trivium. Nos hemos centrado específicamente sobre cuatro metas de la alfabetización científica para demostrar que ellas no son exclusiva ni originalmente científicas, sino que provienen desde los cursos del Trivium. Discutimos, por lo tanto, la detección de falacias, la adopción de una postura objetiva, el desarrollo de un pensamiento racional e inquisitivo y creativo, y la evaluación de la calidad de las fuentes. También consideramos brevemente el planteamiento y las metas de la alfabetización científica, así como la distinción entre las ciencias y otras disciplinas. Nuestra conclusión es que las competencias científicas necesitan desarrollarse sobre la base de las habilidades entrenadas por el Trivium como un sistema formativo. ABSTRACT This essay challenges the proposal of rational and analytic skills being the outcome of scientific literacy and explains that they are, instead, a result of the Trivium. We have specifically focused on four goals of scientific literacy to prove that they are neither exclusively nor originally scientific, but originate in the subjects of Trivium. We discuss, therefore, the exposure of fallacies, the adoption of an objective stance, the development of rational and inquiring and creative thinking, and the assessment of source’s value. We also consider briefly the idea and goals of scientific literacy, as well as the distinction between sciences and other disciplines. Our conclusion is that scientific competences need to grow up on top of those skills trained by the Trivium as an instructional system.
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 | 0.014 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".