MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W123976927 · doi:10.5206/cie-eci.v37i2.9118

Negotiating Tensions and Roles in International Development: A Workshop for Graduate Students

2008· article· en· W123976927 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jennifer Hales

Bibliographic record

VenueComparative and International Education · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyHumanitiesPersonal developmentPedagogyPolitical scienceNegotiationPrivilege (computing)Social scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents the findings from a qualitative research study involving graduate students who are studying or working in international development. The students participated in an activity-based workshop during which they reflected on and discussed their tensions and concerns about the nature of international development and their roles and positions in this work. Tensions ranged from those on a personal level, where students questioned their individual privilege and power in international development, to those on a structural level, where students questioned the overall nature of development practices. The workshop activities, designed by the author and based on a global education framework (Pike & Selby, 2000), generated group discussion, provoked personal reflection, challenged assumptions and reaffirmed goals. The study addresses the potential pedagogical value of such a workshop in promoting critical self-reflection and raising critical consciousness about one’s politics and practice in international development work. Cet article présente les résultats d'une recherche qualitative concernant des étudiants gradués qui vont étudier ou travailler dans un milieu de développement international. Ces étudiants ont participé à un atelier d'activités où ils ont réfléchi aux tensions et aux soucis vis-à-vis de la nature du développement international, y compris leurs rôles et leurs positions dans ce travail. Les tensions se rangent depuis le niveau personnel, où les étudiants se demandent sur leur privilège individuel et leur pouvoir dans le développement international, jusqu'à celles du niveau structurel, où ils se questionnent la nature globale des pratiques de développement. Les activités de l'atelier, conçues par l'auteur d'après un cadre d'éducation globale (Pike & Selby, 2000) créent des discussions en groupe, provoquent des réflexions personnelles, mettent en question les assomptions et réaffirment les objectifs. L'étude aborde la valeur pédagogique possible d’un tel atelier dans le développement de l'autocritique et dans le soulèvement de la conscience critique sur sa politique et ses pratiques propres dans le travail de développement international.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.314
Threshold uncertainty score0.318

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.221
GPT teacher head0.476
Teacher spread0.255 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueComparative and International EducationSame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207