MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1801758040 · doi:10.46743/2160-3715/2015.2315

Applying the Pedagogy of the Oppressed: A Review of Creating Together: Participatory, Community-Based, and Collaborative Arts Practices and Scholarship across Canada

2015· review· en· W1801758040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Bruce Lilyea

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Qualitative Report · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicYouth Development and Social Support
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipEngaged scholarshipSociologyCitizen journalismThe artsParticipatory action researchPedagogyCommunity engagementScholarship of Teaching and LearningPublic relationsVisual artsPolitical scienceTeaching methodAnthropology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Creating Together: Participatory, Community-Based, and Collaborative Arts Practices and Scholarship across Canada offers a series of real-life practical examples where the concepts of the book title are effectively applied and an impact is made in a range of places across Canada and with a range of marginalized groups. By using a comparative approach, this review links the material presented in Creating Together: Participatory, Community-based, and Collaborative Arts Practices and Scholarship across Canada to the concepts presented in Freire’s Pedagogy of the Oppressed. The examples in Creating Together offer pragmatic applications of Freire’s concepts and provide a series of pragmatic illustration for those that want to make a difference in community engagement particularly with those who occupy the edges of society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.269
Threshold uncertainty score0.540

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.021
Science and technology studies0.0040.007
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.526
GPT teacher head0.621
Teacher spread0.095 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Qualitative ReportSame topicYouth Development and Social SupportFrench-language works237,207