Syftet med arbetet är att undersöka eventuella vinster med att använda anonyma digitala enkäter i filosofiundervisningen i gymnasieskolan. Utgångspunkten är vissa elever kan vara mindre benägna att delta muntligt under filosofilektioner jämfört med lektioner i andra ämnen, vilket delvis kan kopplas till att eleverna upplever att de riskerar att utsättas för epistemisk orättvisa i form av vittnesorättvisa. Undersökningen har genomförts i samband med en lektionsserie i epistemologi som genomfördes på en VFU-skola. Tre olika datainsamlingsmetoder har använts: semistrukturerade gruppintervjuer med syfte att undersöka vilka hinder elever upplever i filosofiundervisningen och huruvida anonyma digitala enkäter kan hjälpa dem att övervinna dessa, två kvantitativa flervalstest med syfte att testa elevernas epistemologikunskaper före och efter lektionsseriens genomförande samt en deltagande klassrumsobservation med fokus på metodens hjälp i den formativa bedömningen. Resultatet visar att anonyma digitala enkäter har god potential att fungera som ett stöd i filosofiundervisningen i förhållande till de olika utmaningar som diskuteras i arbetet. / The purpose of this study is to investigate potential benefits of using anonymous digital surveys in Swedish upper secondary school philosophy education. The study assumes that some students may be less inclined to participate orally during philosophy lessons compared to lessons in other subjects, which can partially be linked to students perceiving a risk of being subjected to epistemic injustice in the form of testimonial injustice. The study was conducted in conjunction with a series of lessons on epistemology, which were taught at a placement school. Three different data collection methods were used: semi-structured group interviews aimed at exploring the obstacles students experience in philosophy education and whether anonymous digital surveys can help them overcome these obstacles, two quantitative multiple-choice tests aimed at assessing students' knowledge of epistemology before and after the lesson series, and a participatory classroom observation focusing on the method's benefits for formative assessment. The results indicate that anonymous digital surveys have good potential as a benefit within philosophy education in relation to the various challenges discussed in the study.

[pt] A América Latina tem uma larga tradição no debate do regionalismo, mobilizando reflexões originais no processo de produção de conhecimentos e saberes sobre a integração regional latinoamericana. Ao considerar esse rico acervo, o presente trabalho busca analisar conjugadamente os conceitos de integração regional, autonomia e desenvolvimento que atravessam tanto o campo de estudos do regionalismo quanto a atuação de comunidades epistêmicas – formal ou informalmente – reconhecidas por aglutinar atores (intelectuais, acadêmicos, diplomáticos, atores sociais e políticos) e instituições (universidades, redes, think tanks, órgãos governamentais e organismos regionais) responsáveis por formular, implementar e difundir conhecimentos teóricos e práticos sobre a integração regional e que reúnam capacidade de influenciar a política e os tomadores de decisão na região. O trabalho fez uso da pesquisa qualitativa sendo guiado pela abordagem multidisciplinar, promovendo o debate na área de relações internacionais, sociologia e geopolítica. Visando alcançar os objetivos delineados, foi realizada a revisão bibliográfica dos processos de integração e regionalismo conectada ao marco conceitual das comunidades epistêmicas no contexto latinoamericano e caribenho. Nesse sentido, a discussão foi potencializada pela pesquisa de campo que alcançou 32 entrevistas semiestruturadas com atores de perfil acadêmico, político, sindical e diplomático de oito nacionalidades que se disponibilizaram a responder as questões sobre o sentido da integração latino-americana, o histórico do regionalismo, o cenário atual e o futuro da agenda regional no continente. Por fim, a pesquisa buscou ilustrar um breve panorama da governança regional, bem como indicar tendências e capacidades de influenciar políticas públicas e tomadores de decisão nos países e blocos regionais além de dar visibilidade à atuação de comunidades epistêmicas potenciais, viáveis e prováveis para orientar, apoiar e articular os processos de integração contemporânea da América Latina. / [en] Latin America has a long tradition in the debate on regionalism, mobilizing original reflections in the process of producing knowledge and insight on Latin American regional integration. Considering this rich collection, the present work seeks to jointly analyze the concepts of regional integration, autonomy and development that cross both the field of regionalism studies and the performance of epistemic communities – formally or informally – recognized for bringing together actors (intellectuals, academics, diplomatic, social and political actors) and institutions (universities, networks, think tanks, government agencies and regional institutions) responsible for formulating, implementing and disseminating theoretical and practical knowledge on regional integration and which have the capacity to influence policy and decision-makers in the region. The work made use of qualitative research being guided by the multidisciplinary approach, promoting debate in the area of international relations, sociology and geopolitics. In order to achieve the objectives outlined, a bibliographic review of the processes of integration and regionalism connected to the conceptual framework of epistemic communities in the Latin American and Caribbean context was carried out. In this sense, the discussion was enhanced by the field research that reached 32 semi-structured interviews with academic, political, trade union and diplomatic actors from eight nationalities who made themselves available to answer questions about the meaning of Latin American integration, the history of regionalism, the current scenario and the future of the regional agenda on the continent. Finally, the research sought to illustrate a brief overview of regional governance, as well as to indicate trends and capacities to influence public policies and decision-makers in countries and regional blocks, even as to give visibility to the performance of potential, viable and likely epistemic communities to guide, support and articulate the processes of contemporary integration in Latin America.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

Remaining useful life (RUL) prediction is a problem that researchers in the prognostics and health management (PHM) community have been studying for decades. Both physics-based and data-driven methods have been investigated, and in recent years, deep learning has gained significant attention. When sufficiently large and diverse datasets are available, deep neural networks can achieve state-of-the-art performance in RUL prediction for a variety of systems. However, for end users to trust the results of these models, especially as they are integrated into safety-critical systems, RUL prediction uncertainty must be captured. This work explores an approach for estimating both epistemic and heteroscedastic aleatoric uncertainties that emerge in RUL prediction deep neural networks and demonstrates that quantifying the overall impact of these uncertainties on predictions reveal valuable insight into model performance. Additionally, a study is carried out to observe the effects of RUL truth data augmentation on perceived uncertainties in the model.

Drawing on the theoretical influences of Mad and Disability Studies; philosophical conceptualizations of epistemic injustice (Fricker, 2007), ethical loneliness (Stauffer, 2015), and psycho-emotional disablism (Reeve, 2012; Thomas, 1999; 2007); disability/service user/feminist ethics; a decade of Mad Movement community organizing; as well as autobiographical illustrations and empirical data from two collaborative research projects, this thesis describes my efforts to live a Mad politics in the community, academy, and social work education. Central to this politics, and to the overall contribution of the thesis, is its focus on (1) the recognition and redress of affective-epistemic harms that are often ignored by legislative/social welfare approaches to in/justice; and (2) the generation and refinement of Mad knowledge/ways of knowing that respond to our own priorities as Mad people, rather than those of mental health systems. It contributes to these areas of Mad Studies theory in several ways: First, by recognizing and politicizing the often ignored affective-epistemic effects of abandonment and neglect Mad people experience from society, including loneliness, anger, resentment, distrust, low expectations of others and lack of confidence. Second, by seeking new conceptualizations (such as epistemic loneliness) and contributing to existing ones (like expectations of just treatment, psycho-emotional disablism) in order to more adequately interpret and attest to these harms and call for their redress. Third, by affirming emergent Mad moral and epistemological frameworks, especially those that manifest in the aftermath of harm and account for ontologies of knowing. Fourth, by developing Survivor/Service User Research approaches to analysis (listening for resonance, everyday forms of service user resistance, and ‘quiet’ data) that value affective engagements with data and perceive and respond to Mad onto-ethico-epistemologies in and on their own terms. Ultimately, this work calls for greater relational justice, and an expansion of what we owe each other. / Thesis / Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) / This thesis contributes to Mad theory by recording some of the things I learned while trying to survive in the world, community organizing, the academy, and social work education as a Mad person. To do so, I reflect on the existential and ethical questions I brought to my doctoral studies, the people, texts, and concepts that I found particularly good company during this time, and my Mad methods of living/doing/knowing. Three separate but interconnected articles then follow. These are about (1) moving with loneliness as a Mad student; (2) resisting unmet expectations as service user ethics, and (3) how pedagogical partnerships between students and faculty/staff can cultivate marginalized students’ confidence in their knowledge. The thesis ends with a discussion of its overall contributions to how we conceptualize the psycho-emotional harms produced through sanism/disablism and the ways we understand what Mad knowledge is and how it is generated.

Alors que la société, notamment le grand public et les décideurs politiques, compte sur les experts pour lui fournir des connaissances scientifiques fiables, ceux-ci sont régulièrement en désaccord les uns avec les autres. Pourquoi, alors, faudrait-il leur faire confiance et se fier à leur jugement ? Pour y répondre, j’explore différentes causes des désaccords entre experts à travers le concept du pluralisme scientifique – le pluralisme explicatif et méthodologique, ainsi que la variété de normes épistémiques et non-épistémiques qui influencent la production de la connaissance scientifique – et les dynamiques sociales et politiques dans lesquelles le savoir expert est créé. J’argumente que les désaccords sont, dans le cadre de la recherche scientifique dite « académique », épistémiquement bénéfiques sur le long terme. Avec l’exemple du processus de l’élaboration des politiques publiques, j’explique ensuite comment l’utilisation du savoir scientifique à des fins pratiques crée des problèmes susceptibles d’exacerber les désaccords entre experts, mais que souvent, cela est dû en grande partie à des facteurs hors de leur contrôle. Enfin, j’argumente que cette utilisation particulière du savoir scientifique contribue à la méfiance du public envers les experts lorsqu’ils sont en désaccord, et je présente des conditions sous lesquelles il est justifié de leur faire confiance. / While society, notably the general public and policy makers, count on experts to provide it with reliable scientific knowledge, the latter regularly disagree with each other. Why, then, should we trust them and rely on their judgements? To answer, I explore different causes of disagreements between experts through the concept of scientific pluralism – explanatory and methodological pluralism, and the variety of epistemic and non-epistemic norms that influence the production of scientific knowledge – and the social and political dynamics in which expert knowledge is made. I argue that disagreements are, in the context of so-called “academic” scientific research, epistemically beneficial in the long term. With the example of the policy-making process, I then explain how the use of scientific knowledge for practical purposes creates problems that can exacerbate disagreements between experts, but that often, this is due in large part to factors beyond their control. Finally, I argue that this particular use of scientific knowledge contributes to public mistrust of experts when they disagree, and I present some conditions under which it is justified to trust them.

Infrastructures are the most fundamental facilities and systems serving the society. Due to the existence of infrastructures in economic, social, and environmental contexts, all lifecycle phases of such fundamental facilities should maximize utility for the designers, occupants, and the society. With respect to the nature of the decision problem, two main types of uncertainties may exist: 1) the aleatory uncertainty associated with the nature of the built environment (i.e., the economic, social, and environmental impacts of infrastructures must be described as probabilistic); and 2) the epistemic uncertainty associated with the lack of knowledge of decision maker utilities. Although a number of decision analysis models exist that consider the uncertainty associated with the nature of the built environment, they do not provide a systematic framework for including aleatory and epistemic uncertainties, and decision maker utilities in the decision analysis process. In order to address the identified knowledge gap, a three-phase modular decision analysis methodology is proposed. Module one uses a formal preference assessment methodology (i.e., utility function/indifference curve) for assessing decision maker utility functions with respect to a range of alternative design configurations. Module two utilizes the First Order Reliability Method (FORM) in a systems reliability approach for assessing the reliability of alternative infrastructure design configurations with respect to the probabilistic decision criteria and decision maker defined utility functions (indifference curves), and provides a meaningful feedback loop for improving the reliability of the alternative design configurations. Module three provides a systematic framework to incorporate both aleatory and epistemic uncertainties in the decision analysis methodology (i.e., uncertain utility functions and group decision making). The multi-criteria, probabilistic decision analysis framework is tested on a nine-story office building in a seismic zone with the probabilistic decision criteria of: building damage and business interruption costs, casualty costs, and CO2 emission costs. Twelve alternative design configurations and four decision maker utility functions under aleatory and epistemic uncertainties are utilized. The results of the decision analysis methodology revealed that the high-performing design configurations with an initial cost of up to $3.2M (in a cost range between $1.7M and $3.2M), a building damage and business interruption cost as low as $303K (in a cost range between $303K and $6.2M), a casualty cost as low as $43K (in a cost range between $43K and $1.2M), and a CO2 emission as low as $146K (in a cost range between $133K to $150K) can be identified by having a higher probability (i.e., up to 80%) of meeting the decision makers' preferences. The modular, holistic, decision analysis framework allows decision makers to make more informed performance-based design decisions—and allows designers to better incorporate the preferences of the decision makers—during the early design process. / PHD / Infrastructures, including buildings, roads, and bridges, are the most fundamental facilities and systems serving the society. Because infrastructures exist in economic, social, and environmental contexts, the design, construction, operations, and maintenance phases of such fundamental facilities should maximize value and usability for the designers, occupants, and the society. Identifying infrastructure configurations that maximize value and usability is challenged by two sources of uncertainty: 1) the nature of the built environment is variable (i.e., whether or not a natural hazard will occur during the infrastructure lifetime, or how costs might change over time); and 2) there is lack of knowledge of decision maker preferences and values (e.g., design cost versus social impact tradeoffs). Although a number of decision analysis models exist that consider the uncertainty associated with the nature of the built environment (e.g., natural hazard events), they do not provide a systematic framework for including the uncertainties associated with the decision analysis process (e.g., lack of knowledge about decision maker preferences), and decision maker requirements in the decision analysis process. In order to address the identified knowledge gap, a three-phase modular decision analysis methodology is proposed. Module one uses a formal preference assessment methodology for assessing decision maker values with respect to a range of alternative design configurations. Module two utilizes an algorithm for assessing the reliability of alternative infrastructure design configurations with respect to the probabilistic decision criteria and decision maker requirements, and provides a meaningful feedback loop for understanding the decision analysis results (i.e., improving the value and usability of the alternative design configurations). Module three provides a systematic framework to incorporate both the random uncertainty associated with the built environment and the knowledge uncertainty associated with lack of knowledge of decision maker preferences, and tests the reliability of the decision analysis results under random and knowledge uncertainties (i.e., uncertain decision maker preferences and group decision making). The holistic decision analysis framework is tested on a nine-story office building in a seismic zone with the probabilistic decision criteria of: building damage and business interruption costs, casualty costs, and CO2 emission costs. Twelve alternative design configurations, four decision makers, and random and knowledge sources of uncertainty are considered in the decision analysis methodology. Results indicate that the modular, holistic, decision analysis framework allows decision makers to make more informed design decisions—and allows designers to better incorporate the preferences of the decision makers—during the early design process.

The study aimed to analyze the peer sociocognitive interaction and its relationship with individual cognitive progress, in both symmetrical and asymmetrical situations of epistemic competence. Participants were 72 students of fifth and sixth grade (age, M = 11 years, 3 months, SD = 7 months), who solved logical items (pre / post test individual, intermediate dyadic condition). The results indicated: a) the distribution of arguments in the dyad is the main variable of the interactive process related to differences between symmetrical conditions and b) the volume and distribution of the arguments in dyads are significantly associated with individual cognitive advancement, independently of symmetrical/asymmetrical condition. The results are discussed from a socioconstructivist perspective. / El objetivo del estudio fue analizar la interacción sociocognitiva entre pares y su relación con el avance cognitivo individual, en situaciones de simetría y asimetría de competencia epistémica. Participaron 72 estudiantes de quinto y sexto grado (edad, M = 11 años, 3 meses; SD=7 meses), quienes resolvieron ítems lógicos (pre/post prueba individual, condición diádica intermedia). Los resultados indicaron: a) la distribución del aporte argumental en la díada es el principal diferenciador procesual entre las condiciones simétricas analizadas; b) el volumen y distribución de los argumentos de la díada se asocian significativamente con el avance cognitivo individual, independientemente de la condición de simetría/asimetría de competencia epistémica. Los resultados se discuten a la luz de los fundamentos socioconstructivistas del estudio. / L’objectif de l’étude était d’analyser l’interaction sociocognitive entre pairs et leur relation avec le progrès cognitif individuel, dans des situations de symétrie et d’asymétrie de la compétence épistémique. 72 élèves de cinquième et sixième année ont participé (M = 11 ans, 3 mois, DE = 7 mois), qui ont résolu des items logiques (test pré / post individuel, condition dyadique intermédiaire). Les résultats ont indiqué: a) la distribution de la contribution dans l’argumentation dans le couple est le principal différentiateur procédural entre les conditions symétriques analysées; b) le volume et la distribution des arguments de le couple sont significativement associés à l’avance cognitive individuelle, indépendamment de la condition de symétrie / asymétrie de la compétence épistémique. Les résultats sont discutés sous l’angle des fondements socioconstructivistes de l’étude. / O objetivo do estudo foi analisar a interação sociocognitiva entre pares e sua relação com o progresso cognitivo individual, em situações de simetria e assimetria de competência epistê- mica. Participaram 72 alunos do quinto e sexto ano (idade, M = 11 anos, 3 meses, DE = 7 meses), que resolveram itens lógicos (pré / pós-teste individual, condição diadêmica intermediária). Os resultados indicaram: a) a distribuição da argumentação na díade é o principal diferencial processual entre as condições simétricas analisadas; b) o volume e a distribuição dos argumentos da díade estão significativamente associados ao avanço cognitivo individual, independentemente da condição de simetria / assimetria de competência epistêmica. Os resultados são discutidos à luz dos fundamentos socioconstrutivistas do estudo.