What will have been said about gayness in teacher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article explores a theory of narrative that can account for its underlying structures and can critique a paradox of consciousness‐raising: that the more that narratives are privileged in teacher education, the less we know about how this narrative affects what will come to be said about teacher education's reliance upon stories of experience and identity. We bring this paradox to narratives of gayness in teacher education, suggesting three dominant orientations: narratives of difficulty, narratives of relationships and narratives of hospitality. Our resources for thinking about gayness are tied to archives of discrimination and freedom, themselves now affected by the pandemic known as AIDS. Each narrative, we argue, frames what can be said, what will have been said and what remains to be said. This way of analyzing the history of our present and what can count as a problem today, takes inspiration from an eighteenth‐century debate that focused on the question “What is enlightenment?” We argue that this debate allows for new conceptualizations of gayness in teacher education and that new conceptualizations of teacher education can emerge from an encounter with discussions of gayness.
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 | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".