MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1973583993 · doi:10.1080/03057240.2011.596334

Learning to leave liberalism…and live with complicity, conundrum and moral chagrin

2011· article· en· W1973583993 on OpenAlexaff
Dwight Boyd

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Moral Education · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Philosophy and Ethics
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Christian StudiesUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComplicityLiberalismSociologySubjectivityFeminismPerspective (graphical)Social psychologyEpistemologyPsychologyGender studiesLawPolitical sciencePhilosophyPolitics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper is a story of personal learning. I locate its beginning in my early, comfortable adoption of liberalism as the preferred perspective for my work as a philosopher of education. I then trace how and why I became disaffected with this perspective. I describe how learning from students, feminism and critical race theory led to an acceptance of the fact that my particular social locations as a white, upper-middle-class, educated, heterosexual man are not politically neutral as liberalism would have it, but aspects of social relations that are oppressive to others. I illustrate how this development and its implications took shape in my work, leading me to the unpleasant implications of my unavoidable complicity in these relations, even down to the level of my very subjectivity. I worry, then, about an apparent conundrum that ‘I’ experience when I address the question of how ameliorative change might be initiated, and end with some injunctions to myself.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.059

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0140.085
Scholarly communication0.0120.011
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0040.014
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.233 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Moral EducationSame topicPolitical Philosophy and EthicsFrench-language works237,207