MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154359426 · doi:10.63997/jct.v30i2.501

Toward a Posthumanist Education

2014· article· en· W2154359426 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan Snaza, Peter Appelbaum, Siân Bayne, Marla Morris, Nikki Rotas, Jennifer A. Sandlin, Jason Wallin, Dennis Carlson, John A. Weaver

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Curriculum Theorizing · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicBioethics and Human Rights Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologySociologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The text of our manifesto will introduce posthumanism to a curriculum studies audience and propose new directions for curriculum theory and educational research more broadly. Following a description of what is variously called the “posthuman condition” or the “posthuman era,” our manifesto outlines the main theoretical features of posthumanism with particular attention to how it challenges or problematizes the nearly ubiquitous assumptions of humanism. In particular, we focus on how posthumanism responds to the history of Western humanism’s justification and encouragement of colonialism, slavery, the objectification of women, the thoughtless slaughter of non-human animals, and ecological devastation. We dwell on the question of how posthumanism may alter our understanding of the claim “education is political,” since humanism has shaped our very notions of “education” and “politics.” After outlining posthumanist discourse generally, and detailing the conceptual challenges it poses for education, we propose a list of possible new avenues for curriculum studies research opened up by posthumanism.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0050.029
Scholarly communication0.0060.010
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations149
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Curriculum TheorizingSame topicBioethics and Human Rights IssuesFrench-language works237,207