Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this co-operative inquiry was to increase understanding of empathy. Research centered on an exploration of the meaning of empathy through an uncovering of inner language: first my own, then the inner language of seven published authors (Parker Palmer, Jean Vanier, The Dalai Lama, Kathleen Brehony, Joan Tronto, Ken Wilber, and Dr. Dean Omish), and subsequently, the inner language of six ESL teachers. I chose to work with ESL teachers because I am familiar with this area of teaching. The co-operative aspect of the inquiry undertaken with the teacher-practitioners was a multi-faceted, multi-approach investigation of empathy where empathy remained consistently at the center of our attention and at the heart of our actions. Much diversity in inner language among co-participants was found, as well as significant conflict within the inner language of individuals; nevertheless, inner language in individual co-participants remained quite stable over time. Since each person's inner language expresses his or her values and beliefs, its apparent stability in co-participants would suggest that empathy is a central value for each one of them. The relationship between judging and negotiating the boundaries of empathy was also examined, as well as the impact of judging in extending or blocking empathic feelings, and in fostering or inhibiting change. Experience in this inquiry precipitated several important understandings: (1) negative judgment of others and narcissism are antithetical to empathy; (2) we have a choice of how to act and what attitude to take in any given situation, and exercising that choice requires a conscious and immediate decision-making process based on values and beliefs in each new context; (3) direct experience/action moves understanding beyond a simple grasp of the subject matter to a new level of consciousness that becomes a new level of being; (4) this new level of consciousness includes and integrates new meaning from the unnameable, the inexpressible aspect of direct experience. This inquiry has implications that extend beyond the workplace in that it addresses general theories of consciousness development. For example, Wilber (2002) sees reflective practice as a way of moving from first tier consciousness to second tier consciousness, the essence of which is world-centric compassion. Similarly, the Dalai Lama's (1999) highest level of consciousness development is in what he calls "the supreme emotion" (nying-je), empathy plus reason. In this inquiry, co-participants, by engaging in successive cycles of activity/discussion, reflection, action, and more reflection, showed how movement from first to second tier consciousness can actually occur, and for the thoughts and actions of real people in real-life settings.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".