MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972629325 · doi:10.1080/10986060709336604

Students’ Critical Awareness of Voice and Agency in Mathematics Classroom Discourse

2007· article· en· W1972629325 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Thinking and Learning · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Canadian institutionsUniversity of New Brunswick
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationAgency (philosophy)Class (philosophy)Mathematics educationConventionSociologyPedagogyPsychologyComputer scienceSocial scienceCommunicationArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This account of my extended conversation with a high school mathematics class focuses on voice and agency. As an investigation of possibilities opened up by introducing mathematics students to what Fairclough (1992) Fairclough, N. 1992. Critical language awareness, London: Longman. [Google Scholar] called “critical language awareness” (p. 2), I prompted the students daily to become ever more aware of their language practices in class. The tensions in this conversation proved parallel to the tension in mathematics between individual initiative and convention, a tension that Pickering (1995) Pickering, A. 1995. The mangle of practice: Time, agency, and science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press. [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] called the “dance of agency” (p. 21). Participant students in this classroom-based research resisted the idea of linguistic reference to human agency, although their actual language practice revealed some recognition of human agency.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.107
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.299 · 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