Re-theorising the recognition of prior learning. Per Anderson and Judy Harris (Eds.). National Institute of AdultContinuing Education, Leicester, UK, 2006, 330 pages.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Book Reviews/Recensions"this book.It provides us with a solid discussion and eye-opening description of an important and much-needed praxis.Overall, there is much self-congratulatory rhetoric throughout the texts, especially when the authors mix up epistemology with cultural or religious nostalgia.One noted exception is the discussion of the status of women and the absence of critical thinking in Korea's Confucian education.Another is the earnest struggle against oppression by Christian church people in South America.The book is a welcome addition to the critical literature on learning and epistemology.Much work still needs to be done to acknowledge feminist, anti-racist, non-hegemonic, and inclusive education, and this book contributes to the enterprise.The conceptual basis for collecting the texts under the guise of non-Western knowledge is, of course, flawed from conception.Literature on religious schooling is not difficult to come by, and neither is literature on traditional cultures' world views or on liberation ideology.What this collection does, however, is offer a contribution to each of these areas using the theme of knowing and learning as a common thread.If I had been asked instead to collect some works under the themes of religion, tradition, and liberation, I would probably have accepted, thus avoiding a trap that I then would have been forced to justify with shaky reasoning, most likely hovering somewhere around stammering-as is sadly the case here.One last thing: the cover design of this book should be nominated as most distasteful for both its concept and colour scheme.Spirals and rays, sheesh.When will academic publishers start to hire real graphic artists?In a pinch, I can certainly recommend a few.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".