[pt] Desde a criação da MoLIC, diversas extensões foram propostas com o objetivo de trazer melhorias à linguagem. Entretanto, muitas dessas propostas não foram minuciosamente avaliadas e se distanciaram da metáfora original de interação como uma conversa. Neste trabalho, analisamos e consolidamos propostas existentes e, com base em conceitos linguísticos e de análise da conversação e do discurso, decidimos se e como incluir as mudanças propostas. Como resultado, nós criamos uma versão revisada da linguagem, a MoLIC V4, elaborada visando um melhor alinhamento com a metáfora de interação como uma conversa e com os conceitos teóricos. Para avaliar a MoLIC V4, nós conduzimos um estudo através de questionário para coletar avaliações de estudantes, profissionais e pesquisadores da área de design de interação. Nós também criamos um conjunto de exemplos e trouxemos para a discussão uma breve análise do caráter epistêmico da MoLIC. Esperamos que essas discussões e exemplos sirvam como material de referência no ensino de design de interação a partir de diagramas MoLIC. / [en] Since the creation of MoLIC, several extensions have been proposed to improve the language. However, many of those proposals have not been thoroughly evaluated and have drifted away from the original interaction-asconversation metaphor. In this work, we analyzed and consolidated existing proposals and, based on concepts of Linguistics and conversation and discourse analysis, decided whether and how to include the proposed changes. As a result, we created a revised version of the language, MoLIC V4, better aligned with the interaction-as-conversation metaphor and theoretical concepts. To evaluate MoLIC V4, we conducted a survey study to collect feedback from students, practitioners, and researchers on interaction design. We also created a set of examples and brought to the discussion a brief analysis of the epistemic character of MoLIC. We hope that these discussions and examples will serve as a reference when teaching interaction design through MoLIC diagrams.

Naturvetenskapsundervisning idag tenderar att måla en bild av att allt redan är förklarat och alla samband är upptäckta inom naturvetenskap. Skolans jobb handlar bara om att lära ut alla förklaringarna. Medan skolans undervisning fokuserar på att återge de rätta svaren ärforskare ofta djupt engagerade i frågor som ännu inte har något svar. Bland forskare inom naturvetenskap uttrycks även att en viktig drivkraft i deras arbete handlar om förundran inför det som studeras. Är det då möjligt att inom ramen för skolans undervisning använda sig av förundran som ett pedagogiskt verktyg, där det skapas en medvetenhet om att det finns mer att utforska? Ett växande forskningsfält rör förundrans betydelse för lärande i egenskap av epistemisk känsla och hur det kan integreras i undervisningen. I denna rapport undersöks hur elever på högstadiet upplever förundran i fysikundervisningen och deras syn på effekten och betydelsen av förundran för att lära sig fysikämnet. Studien har genomförts genom gruppintervjuer med elever där underlaget analyserats utifrån ett fenomenologiskt ramverk. Analysresultatet återger att essensen av elevernas upplevelser är att förundran upplevs om än inte så ofta. När det gäller vad som stimulerar förundran är essenserna flera sinnesintryck och elevens agens. I synen på effekterna och betydelsen av förundran anges sambandet mellan förundran, intresse och lärande som essensen, där speciell tonvikt läggs på att lärandet gynnas av att möta förundran tidigt. Slutsatsen av rapporten föreslår en uppgradering av begreppet förundran inom lärarutbildning, en medveten användning av undersökande arbetssätt för att stimulera förundran samt att förundran kan vara en nyckel till att starta en lärandeprocess. / Today's science education tends to portray a picture of science where everything has already been explained and all relations discovered. The task of schools is just to teach these explanations. While school education focuses on giving the right answers, scientists are often deeply engaged in questions that have not yet been resolved. Among scientists, wonder in relation to the object of study is expressed as an important motivation for their work. Is it then possible to use wonder as a pedagogical tool in school science, where an awareness is created that there is more to be discovered? An expanding field of research concerns wonder as an epistemic emotion and its implications for teaching. In this report, students' experiences of wonder in physics teaching and their view of the effects and significance of wonder in the learning of physics are investigated in lower secondary school. The study has been carried out using group interviews with students and the data set has been analysed through a phenomenological framework. The results of the analysis suggest that the essence of the students' experiences include that wonder is experienced but not so often. The found essences of what stimulates wonder are perception from several senses and students' agency. Regarding students' view of the effects and significance of wonder, the connection between wonder, interest and learning are noted as the essence, where there is a special emphasis on the claim that learning is facilitated by starting with wonder. The conclusions of the report propose an upgrade of the concept of wonder in teacher education, an intentional use of inquiry-based teaching to stimulate wonder and wonder as a key concept to start a process of learning.

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.