Bibliographic record
Abstract
Thinking through affective theories by Alfred North Whitehead, Giles Deleuze, and Brian Massumi, this paper proposes an understanding of pedagogy that is sensational. To consider affective theories and their implications for educational research, I engage with a relational artwork, “The Chinatown Foray,” by Toronto‐based artist Diane Borsato. In “The Chinatown Foray,” the artist and the audience, which consisted of amateur mycologists, foodies, and a few art students, foraged through Chinatown in Manhattan, New York, to collect various mushroom species in the shops and markets, followed by a group lunch of dim sum at a local restaurant. In the paper I describe relational art and situate Borsato’s practice within this paradigm. From there I contextualize the use of walking as a form of research‐creation and attend to the politics of smell in the construction of alterity. The paper concludes by way of Deleuze and Guattari’s (1986) theories of the “minor,” which recognizes that bodily encounters—the act of one body interacting with another body—are affective. I argue that close, critical, and deeply contextual analyses of relational art practices as sensational pedagogy advances, develops, and enhances understandings, theories, and practices of body knowledge. Moving beyond a simple binary of mind and body, a sensational pedagogy endeavors to free the base senses, like smell, from their limiting associations.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.035 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".