Faux Connaître: Getting It and Not Getting It
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Borders not only limit contact and exchange but they often connect and create ways of communication and interaction. To establish and maintain both limits and contact, power must come into play. Thus borders act as a “technology of power,” to use Foucault’s terminology. While the Foucauldian decentralization of power from institutionalized centres does not directly comment on ethics of power, it helps us to understand better the complexity of ethical relationships that emerge from the workings of power through a myriad of borders. This panel will consider Foucauldian perspectives on how power might operate within a proposal of education with/out borders, especially as it might pertain to our Faculty of Education at Simon Fraser University. Panellists will be asked to discuss the following questions: 1) Might Foucault’s works ever suggest a possibility of living without borders and limits? What is the implication of this question for an educational institution like ours? 2) What could a notion of ‘without’ imply in terms of a utopian dream and an epistemological negation that posits and positions power relations?
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 | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".