Mapping the Shadow: Bringing Scholarship and Teachers Together to Explore Agency's Shape and Content in Social Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
History and social studies not only help to suture together “imagined communities” (Anderson, 1983 Anderson, B. 1983. Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism, London, , England: Verso. [Google Scholar]), they also convey understandings about how people effect change through time. This qualitative study investigates the reasoning of 4 secondary history teachers about agency as both a question of the shape of human interactions and content of human motivations expressed through their teaching and in relation to scholarship in sociology and history. Participants account for the content of agency (with varying degrees of emphasis) with appeals to socioeconomic positions and experiences. A tension exists, however, concerning how best to reconcile such experiences with the motivational force of ideals and existential tensions behind people's actions. Relating to the shape of agency, participants raise questions about the relative roles played by, and interaction between, leaders, discourses and ideals, and social movements. This study explores the ways in which these findings reflect broader forms of cultural reasoning about agency and the benefits of bringing teachers and scholarship together around key historical concepts.
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".