Beyond Reason and Personal Integrity: Toward a Pedagogy of Coercive Restraint
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article challenges a popular assumption in adult education that all forms of coercion are evil; it begins to articulate a pedagogy of coercive restraint for use when faced with perpetrators of social injustices. The author clarifies the need for such a pedagogy based on critiques of adult education theories and practices. Forms and levels of restraint appropriate to different levels of conflict are described. The pedagogy of coercion is then situated within the broader pedagogy of mobilization, with suggestions for development of the ideas. Résumé Cet article remet en question la croyance populaire voulant que toute forme de coercition soit nécessairement répréhensible. On y articule une pédagogie de la contrainte physique à utiliser dans les cas d'injustice sociale. En se fondant sur les critiques formulées à l'égard de la théorie et la pratique de l'éducation des adultes, l'auteur soutient qu'une telle pédagogie repond à un besoin. Il décrit les formes et les degrés de contrainte physique qui sont appropriés en présence de différents types de conflits. Le texte situe la pédagogie de la coercition dans le contexte élargi de la pédagogie de la mobilisation, et contribue quelques idées pour sa mise en pratique.
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 | 0.010 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.072 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".