Bibliographic record
Abstract
Didaction is an expressive action in search of internal consistency; ongoing appraisal of it develops and establishes indexical connections and relations with the socially useful aspects of creative and evolutionary production. So defined, the didactive perspective is postmodern. It situates Arts education in the autonomous possibility of constructive emergence from the relation with others. In its artistic and discursive expressions, this connection is creative. It is partially explicable–duly made explicit through momentary consensual anticipations; but in its creative originality, it eludes the representational exhaustiveness upon customary school evaluations rest. Evaluation becomes assessment/appraisal. Appraisal is the product and the process of creation or action, rather than its criterion-based anticipation. Adoption of this position leads to a fresh denunciation of the instructional myth according to which it is possible to plan the representational course or trajectory of others' learning. In contrast to this myth, didaction is a personal affair; it does not differ from the representational and motivational possibilities of the individual as expressed in the learning process. The examples of didaction provided here come from action poety in the Francophone world: in Switzerland, Ontario, and the West Indies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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 teacher head, 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".