Spaces of collaboration: The poetics of place and historical consciousness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The process of engaging students in the negotiation of their place in historical landscapes is vitalized through the development of historical consciousness as a pedagogical tool for instruction in social studies. This study uses student reflection collected from a graduate course to examine how historical consciousness is understood and expressed through experiential interaction with historical sites and the role of people, places, and historical events in the creation of social history. The participants in the study reflected on how public memory is constructed and individualized within grand and personal narratives of their chosen area of commemoration. The study’s participants showed an eagerness to incorporate interactive technology to express their understanding of historical events, further highlighting technology’s role in democratizing information through digital historical narratives. The student-participants also internalized and articulated their experiences with history through artistic means, which permitted a free expression across multiple media. As prospective educators, the participants negotiated the role of historical consciousness in the development and extension of curricular practices, including the critical examination of official narratives in favour of a socialized history.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.048 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".