Out of the box: Making space for everyday critical pedagogies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Under the sway of neoliberal forces, the university system is being reconfigured to produce certain types of knowledges, imaginaries, subjectivities, and practices informed by market imperatives. Considerable literature details the promises and perils of neoliberalism in higher education. In the past decade, this has included the growth of interdisciplinary scholarship that explores the potential of critical pedagogy as a site of contestation in the higher education sector. In this context, the notion of critical pedagogy provides a dialogical and imaginative starting point for opening up spaces for what is otherwise denied or ignored. Although critical pedagogy is a “big tent” movement, a number of cogent and hard‐hitting critiques have emerged highlighting its theoretical and political limitations. Concerns include the need for more attention to the complexities of how critical pedagogies are embodied or performed. This article argues that the performative dimension of critical pedagogy is important for putting into place the production of everyday spaces capable of transforming the boundaries of what is regarded as valid or legitimate knowledge and culture.
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 | 0.027 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.149 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.028 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".