Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On Knowing: Art and Visual Culture Paul Duncum and Ted Bracey (Eds.). (2001). Christcburch, New Zealand: Canterbury University Press. 163 pages, ISBN 1-877257-14-1.Department of An and An History at the University of Missouri-Saint LouisOn Knowing: Art and Visual Culture is a collection of essays and responses written by an international cast of education theorists working in Canada, the United States, Australia, anci New Zealand who share a common interest in exploring the epistemology of and its importance to education. The list of contributors includes Ted Bracey, former Head of Fine Arts at the University of Canterbury, New Zealand; Graeme Chalmers, Professor of Art Education in the Department of Curriculum Studies at the University of British Columbia, Vancouver; Paul Duncum, then Lecturer in Visual Arts Curriculum at the University of Tasmania, Australia; Kerry Freedman, Professor of Art Education at the University of Northern Illinois; Elizabeth Garber, Professor of Art at the University of Arizona; and Philip Pearson, lecturer in Pine Arts at the University of Canterbury. Most of these authors are well represented in American education literature, and are recognized for pushing the professional field in new directions that are consistent with progressive revisionist movements in the humanities, visual arts, and social sciences. Readers accustomed to having their professional routines shaken up and their intellects energized by these authors will not be disappointed by this slender but provocative volume. This collection addresses many of the current debates in education; however, readers should be aware that it is not an introductory text to education theory. Several of the authors assume a degree of familiarity with both the work of recent scholars and the philosophers who laid the foundation for current thinking in education, and at times the language is complicated.Art educators firmly ensconced in traditional modernist approaches to education may perceive these authors as radicals, and if incorporating cnvironmentalism, cultural pluralism, alternative interpretations, popular culture, and social issues into curriculum is considered radical, indeed they are. Their common aim is to broaden and deepen the theory and practice of education to make it more relevant, substantive, and meaningful at individual and social levels. They believe that educators have the potential to change the world for the better and that any education failing to do so has missed an opportunity. Instead of forcing themselves to arrive at some mutually agrced-upon set of principles or prescriptions for education, they chose in this text to retain their independent voices. The first and largest portion of this book is comprised of Position Statements, well-researched formal essays by each author. In the second section, Responses, which is much more informal in style, each author revisits ideas presented in the first section. This collection is unique in its inclusion of responses by the contributors to the ideas and concepts presented by their fellow writers. In fact, the section helps to clarify the positions of the various authors as well as provides a forum for critique and questioning. As this collection attests, these authors are committed-or at least willing-to reckon with contrasting points of view; however, they do not shy away from fault-finding or attempting to persuade readers to accept one perspective over another. The Responses section is lively, contentious, and occasionally witty.Although the authors take different and sometimes conflicting stances on the fundamental issues of contemporary education theory and practice in their Position Statements, they believe that a new approach to education, and what education should encompass, is needed in a postmodern, multicultural era. Heavy emphasis is placed on the exploration of the relationship of art to the concept of visual culture, the need to reexamine our presuppositions about and its relationship to the world of education and the world at large, and how we come to know about art. …
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it