MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138781304 · doi:10.25071/1916-4467.36759

Complicating the Curricular Conversation with Antonin Artaud and Maxine Greene

2014· article· en· W2138781304 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Mindy Roberta Carter

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArt Education and Development
Canadian institutionsCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConversationContradictionSociologyIdentity (music)PsychologyPsychoanalysisAestheticsEpistemologyPhilosophyCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

…if I and other teachers truly want to provoke our students to break through the limits of the conventional and taken for granted, we ourselves have to experience breaks with what has been established in our own lives; we have to keep arousing ourselves to begin again. (Greene, 1995, p. 109) One purpose of a/r/tography is to open up conversations and relationships instead of informing others about what has been learned. Another purpose is to open up possibilities for a/r/tographers as they give their attention to what is seen and known and what is not seen and not known. Openings are not necessarily passive holes through which one can see easily. Openings are often like cuts, tears, ruptures or cracks that resist predictability, comfort and safety (Springgay, Irwin, Leggo & Gouzouasis, 2008). For the past few months I have been ruminating deeply on the ideas Maxine Greene discusses in the above quotation while simultaneously giving myself multiple excuses for resisting acknowledging the ways that the breaks she describes haunt me. I perceive myself as living in contradiction because I appear to myself to embrace the purposes and renderings of a/r/tography, all the while wishing for comfort and safety and to some extent predictability. A/r/tography is an arts based research method in which ones identity and work as an artist, teacher and researcher impact and inform one another in multiple and emergent ways (Carter, 2012; Carter, 2013; Carter, Beare, Belliveau & Irwin, 2011). Part of the nature of living and working a/r/tographically is to embrace the uncertainty of the in between and so the conundrum is thus: How can I encourage my arts education students to dwell with/in ambiguity, represent their thoughts in multiple kinds of texts and feel their worlds in body, mind and spirit, if I am hesitant to be seen living these ways by them and by myself? The short answer to this question is that I can’t. And so, as a way to arouse myself to begin again I have chosen to discuss some of Antonin Artaud’s key theoretical concepts alongside selected curriculum theories as a way of tuning into and articulating what curricular openings are and might mean.

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 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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum StudiesSame topicArt Education and DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207