Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this essay Maureen Ford examines a selection of situated knowledges discourses in order to make explicit their attention to political effects. She contends, first, that the “epistemic public(s)” constituted through these discourses are multiple, interactive, performative, and layered, and further that they are explicitly political in ways that are denied by standard epistemological approaches. Furthermore, Ford maintains that the political effects circulated within standard and situated knowledges are epistemologically and educationally significant. Attending to the work of Donna Haraway, Patricia Hill Collins, and María Lugones, she teases out some of the various strategies through which their texts explicitly invoke politically salient, multidimensional, embodied engagement with spaces, people, and discourses in order to make sense. Ford explores the ramifications for educators and educational theorists of addressing such epistemic publics, noting that they are complex and almost inevitably uncomfortable. Taking up discourses of situated knowledges, she suggests, proliferates the avenues through which educators and educational theorists can contribute to the creation and contestation of “public” truths.
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 | 0.012 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.054 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.026 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 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".