MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1986209009 · doi:10.3138/ctr.147.38

A Pedagogy of Justice

2011· article· en· W1986209009 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Naila Keleta-Mae

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Theatre Review · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPraxisSociologyReflexivityPedagogyCritical pedagogyDeconstruction (building)Subject (documents)Economic JusticePoliticsPower (physics)Work (physics)Space (punctuation)Meaning (existential)AestheticsEpistemologySocial sciencePolitical scienceLinguisticsArtComputer scienceLawEngineeringPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Within the deeply subjective space of post-secondary classrooms where art is both subject and praxis, canon and methodology frequently converge to reproduce asymmetrical systems of power. The disruption of these systems is arduous and rewarding work, work that requires a committed consortium of students, teachers and extended community. My teaching practice is a pedagogy of justice that uses divergent source material to challenge participants to interrogate the historical, political, and cultural components of their frameworks of analysis and those at play in the material at hand. Within the intellectually rigorous learning environment that my pedagogy of justice requires, I aim to teach students to enrich their thinking and communicative skills through critical self-reflexivity. This is risky business. It asks students and teachers to look closely at their moorings and at times to untie systems of meaning-making that have held together their worldviews for a long time.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.143

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.001
Science and technology studies0.0120.034
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0020.006
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.204 · 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Theatre ReviewSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207