Might Diversity also be Ontological? Considering Heidegger, Spinoza and Indigeneity in Educative Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
By considering the work and words of some Anishinaabe Elders, Heidegger, and Spinoza we argue that these point at another state of being, a different ontological position, from the one most broadly expressed in modern western culture and in its schools. We call this state attentive receptivity. While leaving the door open for still other states of being, we sketch in some key conditions and qualities including its interdependence with the more-than-human world. We argue that the condition of attentive receptivity can be seen as a different ontological position because of fundamental differences in what is understood and enacted as self, place, community, and the environment. We also think that accompanying arguments for different ways of knowing imply a different way of being. Through this reflexively coupled loop of ontology and epistemology we end by suggesting that education, if it is serious about diversity, would do well to consider both ontology and epistemology in creating a truly diverse education.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.100 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".