MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7125460471

Stoic Wisdom for the Contemplative Teacher: Prosochê and Praemeditatio Malorum as Alternative Approaches to Mindfulness

2025· article· W7125460471 on OpenAlexaff
Anna Rumjahn

Bibliographic record

VenueScholarWorks@BGSU (Bowling Green State University) · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicClassical Philosophy and Thought
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsContemplationMindfulnessMeditationBurnoutPhenomenology (philosophy)Framing (construction)Transformative learning
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In K-12 environments where teacher burnout and attrition are increasingly prevalent, where can educational professionals seek sustainable approaches to reduce exhaustion, emotional demands, and uncertainty? In this paper, I extend Christopher McCaw’s research on the direct and dynamic relationship between contemplative practices and who teachers are and are becoming. By examining the current debates around defining reflective and contemplative practitioners, I call for alternative definitions of mindfulness when considering teacher professional becoming and submit for consideration the perspectives of Greco-Roman philosophy which has hitherto been less explored apropos education. Using prosochê (attention) and the Stoic exercise of praemeditatio malorum to expand the conceptual framing of becoming a contemplative practitioner, I articulate the gifts of Hellenistic thinking and what it can offer K-12 teachers. With personal reflections as a beginning teacher during the COVID-19 pandemic, an exploration of the implications and limitations of philosophical premeditation implemented as a contemplative practice for educators are considered.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.039

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.044
Scholarly communication0.0070.009
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.108
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.141 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScholarWorks@BGSU (Bowling Green State University)Same topicClassical Philosophy and ThoughtFrench-language works237,207