MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097681902 · doi:10.63997/jct.v27i3.172

Running With and Like my Dog: An Animate Curriculum for Living Life Beyond the Track

2011· article· en· W2097681902 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum Theorizing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTrack (disk drive)CurriculumComputer scienceVisual artsHuman–computer interactionAeronauticsPsychologyEngineeringArtPedagogyOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

More than a playful inquiry, questioning what is it like to run 'with' and 'like' a dog provides a philosophical and tangible point of entry for re-exploring notions of a 'lived', or rather, a 'living' curriculum. Dogs have extreme perception, yet due to traditional hierarchical distinctions, human-animal intertwinings of consciousness are rarely explored laterally or with reversibility. Drawing upon Merleau-Ponty's common element of 'flesh' and Deleuze's notion of molecular becomings, this inquiry delves into life beyond the rigidity of our culturally constructed, forward-facing comportment. So often we humans run through life with self-imposed blinders. We run with a view fixed on the horizon, a gaze that is not open to the possibilities of the path we have the potential to not only follow, but to create. Dogs, by contrast, experience the world phenomenologically as they perceive it for what it really is: a slew of sentient wonder. As we approach what it might be like to be more like our dogs in the way we run through and shape our course in life, an animate curriculum for running off and beyond the linearity of a self-imposed track, tenure, athletic or otherwise, awaits.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.495

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.294 · 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