Liberalism, Advanced Liberalism, and the Governmental Policy Challenge in Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Governmentality, as credited to Michel Foucault, was developed later on in the theorist’s life.In Foucault’s understanding of government, or governmentality, our sources of regulation are anchored in the programmes, policies, strategies, methods, thoughts and action of our everyday conduct. Governance becomes more a methodology, a practice or rational way of doing things, affecting the way in which power is exercised over ourselves and others. Thus as governance moves past fixed understandings concerning hierarchical power (state and civil society) subject freedom becomes participant in forms of state organization and regulation. Foucault’s approach towards liberalism begs an analysis rationalizing political and educational forms of governance as such an activity. Here liberalism may be viewed as a reflective way of doing things, a method for rationalizing government practices, in that the state will profit and boost control by actually doing less over a citizenry. Under advanced liberalism (neoliberalism) the pathways of state government and self-government collide with even less frequency. Control then is more characteristically the mandate of the individual as citizens become experts of themselves, exerting rituals of personal regulation over bodies, conduct, and minds. This paper scrutinizes the influences of both liberal and advanced liberal administrative streams in Canadian educational policy, asking stakeholders to think long and hard on what is asked of our profession.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".