MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2259265970 · doi:10.2304/power.2010.2.1.31

Mapping the Movement of Invention: Collaboration as Rhizome in Teaching and Research the (1+1+1) Collective

2010· article· en· W2259265970 on OpenAlex
Michelle Forrest, Miriam Cooley, Linda Wheeldon

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePower and Education · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicInnovative Education and Learning Practices
Canadian institutionsAcadia UniversityUniversity of AlbertaMount Saint Vincent University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMovement (music)EpistemologyOntologySociologyProcess (computing)HeuristicValue (mathematics)Power (physics)Computer scienceAestheticsPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The collaborative education research as art created by The (1+1+1) Collective is examined as heuretics, the movement of invention. Heuretics both enacts and documents the movement of the research process and therefore helps balance the biases, which are expressions of power, inherent in the means of expressing any inquiry. This methodology, which acts as a rhizome, offers a model for academic collaboration; it maps the movement of invention by enacting moves provoked by the heuristic of chance as in the example of process art, which can be understood philosophically in terms of Deleuzian ontology and Deleuze & Guattari's conceptualisation of philosophy as one of the three great forms of thought. Throughout the article, connections are made to teacher education and research, and it is suggested that understanding the value of heuretics can help the teacher and the researcher avoid methodological fundamentalism.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.853

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.466
Teacher spread0.377 · 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