Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowing Bodies, Moving Minds: Towards Embodied Teaching and Learning Liora Bresler, Editor (2004). Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands. 223 pages. ISBN 1-4020-22022-8.Knowing Bodies, Moving Minds comes to us just at a time in education that we are recognizing that we have paid far too little attention to the body's role in our cultural lives and especially in our pedagogy. Liora Bresler has assembled a stellar group of writers on arts education and philosophy whose contributions make this new book a pleasure to read and a pleasure to review. This summer, I had the great good fortune to host a teacher institute in conjunction with the Vancouver Art Gallery around the show, Between Real and Representational-The Body in Art. At that institute, we used the work of contemporary artists, art critics, philosophers and educators developed around notions of the body. So much of our current educational practice is being informed through perspectives from arts and aesthetic education and curriculum theory focusing on conceptions of the body and embodiment. This book was an invaluable addition to our reading list. What made this book so important, from my perspective, was that exceptional writers and researchers were chosen in each of the art forms of visual arts, music, and dance/drama, as well as experts in early childhood, anthropology and philosophy. The richness in the text then ran across disciplines and through case studies to classroom possibilities. Some of the chapters were applicable to all our needs, and some provided individual students access to ideas and arguments in more specialized forms of inquiry. I will briefly explore three chapters to show both the diversity of the book and how we used it with the 100-plus teachers that attended the institute.Education and the Philosophy of the Body: Bodies of Knowledge and Knowledges of the Body, the chapter by Michael Peters, served as an excellent introduction for both our master level students and our preservice students to the Western philosophical legacy of Descartes. Peters explores modern French philosophy with clarity and grace and, in one chapter, makes sense of phenomenology, hermeneutics, existentialism, structuralism and post-structuralism, and the major philosophers from Foucault to Merleau-Ponty. This is no easy task, yet because French philosophy is in such vogue in education today, this chapter set the stage for not only readings in our course but also for much of what the graduate students had been reading throughout their programs. …
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.003 |
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".