A Didática da História: um inventário das proximidades em pesquisas na Europa e Canadá
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The term "Didactics of History" is known in Brazil through texts and articles originating from the German investigative approach. For this and other reasons, some researchers do not accept these discussions, as they disagree with the analyses, especially those of Jörn Rüsen, believing that the field is exclusively limited to this Germanic framework and lacks theoretical and thematic diversity. However, this is a misconception. This present article represents an initiative to reflectively relate different research and historical learning experiences in countries such as Germany, France, Spain, Italy, and Canada. We demonstrate that researchers in various locations, while sometimes having overlapping concepts and sometimes distinguishing themselves through local initiatives, approach history education by integrating the frameworks of historical theory, historiography, and education. We highlight concepts such as "thinking historically," "history labs," and the structuring of variations of the notion of "historical consciousness" across multiple contexts. Finally, we emphasize that another common element in these works is the protagonism of students' and teachers' ideas in the collective process of building school historical knowledge.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".