MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1669406258 · doi:10.25071/1916-4467.26099

“The Reluctant Pilgrim:” Questioning Belief After Historical Loss

2010· article· en· W1669406258 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Lisa Farley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducator Training and Historical Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPilgrimagePilgrimSubject (documents)EpistemologySociologyFace (sociological concept)MetaphorHistoryConsciousnessAestheticsPhilosophySocial scienceArchaeologyTheologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper, I explore the question of belief as it is enacted in the inclination to return to places of history's lost objects. I argue that such returns, and the beliefs that fuel them, offer a site in which to consider the persistent, inter-generational effects of history, particularly when the history at stake is one of trauma. While, in education, belief is often cast as separate from historical consciousness, I suggest that belief is evidence, a remnant, of a "truth" of past trauma that disrupts the very capacity to know (Caruth, 1996). I ground my discussion in a case study of historical pilgrimage that returns every July to the former site of the Lejac Residential School in Northern British Columbia. This pilgrimage, in my view, lays bare the double-edged quality of belief as it intersects with the subject of history: on the one hand, there is the wish for redemption that repeats the very terms of history it seeks to overcome, and on the other hand, the possibility of tolerating the idea of a future that can face the vulnerabilities, anxieties and uncertainties that difficult history sets into motion. The pilgrimage, I believe, is a useful metaphor for thinking about curriculum, where what is at stake is not a "simple knowledge," but the capacity to open oneself to the vulnerabilities of living with and after historical loss.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.309 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum StudiesSame topicEducator Training and Historical PedagogyFrench-language works237,207