MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2187374394 · doi:10.36510/learnland.v4i2.398

(En)Gendering Difference: A For(u)m for Possibilities

2011· article· en· W2187374394 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Pam Patterson

Bibliographic record

VenueLEARNing Landscapes · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPerformative utteranceNarrativeDiversity (politics)Ethnic groupSociologyGender studiesRace (biology)PedagogyAestheticsAnthropologyArtLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This inquiry observes how cultural collaborations can create for(u)ms—forms representing narrative activity; for-"ums" for reflective pauses; and forums for discussion— to critically address and provide spaces for playing in and with differences in ability, race, gender, and ethnicity. Using the project gender/TROUBLING as template, it theorizes a performative model for learning to explore the possibilities for engendering diversity and for building responsive, creative, and inclusive teaching/learning practices.

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)0.006
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0080.028
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.008
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.383
Teacher spread0.268 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLEARNing LandscapesSame topicInnovative Education and Learning PracticesFrench-language works237,207