Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snakes and Ladders is a “performed ethnography” that tells the story of what happens when high school teachers and students in a fictional Canadian high school attempt to put on a Pride Day at their school. The ethnographic play script is based on data from an empirical study on anti-homophobia education I undertook in four Toronto schools from 2002 to 2003 (Goldstein, Collins and Halder, 2008). The richness of performed ethnography comes from three sources: the ethnographic research from which a play script is created; the reading or performance of the play; and the conversations that take place after the reading or performance. In these follow-up conversations, research participants and other readers or audience members have input about the conclusions of the research. The incorporation of audience input into on-going revisions of the play provides an opportunity for mutual analysis, and helps me create more collaborative relationships between myself, my research participants, and the communities to in which my research participants belong. Post-reading/performance conversations also allow me to link up my anti-oppression school-based research to my work as a teacher educator. In their reading and discussion of Snakes and Ladders my students, who are both new and experienced teachers, are able to explore some of the contradictory desires educators have towards anti-homophobia education in public schools. On one hand, educators want to protect their students from homophobic violence at school. On the other, they want to hold on to their own beliefs about homosexuality and queer lives, which are often homophobic. By representing both contradictory and shifting positions in the performed ethnography, I am sometimes able to provoke a shifting of positions to anti-homophobia education among the readers of the script (Goldstein, 2004). It is in such moments that Snakes and Ladders is full of pedagogical possibility.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".