Countering Commonsense: Non‐normative Strategies for SocialJustice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In an extensive review of research relating to education for social justice, Hytten (2006) argues that in order "to bring more attention to alternative democratic, social justice-oriented visions for schooling, we need a more powerful and strident discourse coming from the educational left, one that can help us to coalesce diverse movements for social justice, as well as provide impetus and vision (theory and practice) for progressive educational change" (p.224).The articles in this issue of JCACS respond to this call for more "powerful and strident discourse" that is both critical and visionary.Poststructuralist notions of power as both the means and will to act are evident in many of the arguments, and reports on research employing a variety of 'ethno-methods' (ethnodrama, autoethnography, critical narrative research) and counter-normative theoretical lenses (critical, cultural and complex) shape a common desire to understand what social justice as equity in opportunity means, and might yet mean, for education.In the context of these papers, social justice is promoted by questioning normative (taken-for-granted/commonsense) educational
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 | 0.022 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.001 |
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.
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".