Deconstructing globalization discourse, and unveiling its effects on education through critical pedagogy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A purposefully slippery and ambiguous definition of modern globalization is defining our epoch, rendering the perception of global citizens as powerless to affect it. In an attempt to unravel and understand globalization processes, a literature review of critical pedagogy was conducted in order to acquire the tools to investigate globalization critically. I examine processes of globalization and their effects on Western education, namely Canada and the U.S., and explore how critical pedagogy can be used as a tool to address some of the negative forces of globalization by acting as a vehicle for globalization from below. The investigation into critical pedagogy researches the foundations of critical pedagogy and its key concepts, as well as today's most prominent critical pedagogues, and some critiques. Most importantly, it attempts to link the economic, political, and cultural forces of globalization to the dominant ideology and hegemony driving them. This thesis hopes to contribute to the research in critical pedagogy's effectiveness by examining to what extent critical pedagogy is compatible with our modern epoch of globalization, and also to what degree the learner, I, was able to become critically conscious on the subject and thus in everyday life
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 | 0.010 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.062 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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".