Bibliographic record
Abstract
[First paragraph] This project has too many strands to even begin to suggest where it started. However, it really began to take shape during an afternoon spent scouring libraries and bookstores with a friend who teaches in the International Baccalaureate (IB) program at a local secondary school. He teaches physics and chemistry but had been given a new course, "Theory of Knowledge," or TOK as they call it in their shorthand. He asked what I thought of its title and aims and I had to be honest: "It is the most pretentious sounding thing I’ve heard in a while." He agreed. Where does one begin teaching Gr. 12 students, no matter how talented, the "theory of knowledge"? Yes, they meant one. Apparently, there is one theory of knowledge and in 375 minutes per week over the course of a twenty-week semester, it is to be delivered and faithfully so. Alternatively, one could endeavour to teach them all theories of knowledge in order to ensure that students would be able to question any knowledge claim they encounter. Who would undertake such a task? Who could? Small wonder, then, I was finding students who made flat statements like, "I know all about Northrop Frye. I read his essay in high school." I have never forgotten that one because one section of the second chapter of the Anatomy of Criticism was understood as being everything. Yet, it was not surprising. We had more to teach them and instead of increasing the time available to do so, the institutional structures were compressing schedules. Ontario even managed to eliminate a year of high school without finding a way -- even a money-making one -- to replace it with two-year schools or something like the CEGEPs in Québec. Eventually, we hit upon trying to teach critical thinking and the cogent expression of that thought as our two primary goals; neither of us trusting epistemologies nor being satisfied with ontologies. Admittedly, we both avoid defining a "theory of knowledge," let alone "the" theory of 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 | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.384 | 0.267 |
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".