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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Children, youth, other persons, animals even are those with whom our lives are entwined, yet our connections are customarily superficial, fleeting and distant. Where they are sustained in various professional and pedagogical practices, the relations tend to be constrained by routines, rituals and rites. The primary motive of contact improvisation, however, is to connect to others beyond our habitual containments. As a movement form, contact improvisation brings postural, positional, gestural and expressive nuance to our actions, reactions and interactions. It is a somatic practice not only of relating sensitively to others, but also of cultivating a corporeal responsiveness to those who would otherwise fall outside our personal and professional commitments. We realize the possibilities of such connection when the spatial, and especially the temporal, dynamics of contact improvisation are transposed ‘somatophorically’ to discursive realms. A felt durational emphasis can be now heard as the agogic accent of multilingualism. And as an accent of speech, but also of song, music and motion, its significance spreads through all our relations with others. Particular attention is paid to the pedagogical formulation of this accent and to how improvisatory contact might be transposed to settings of evident educational concern. Relations between teachers and students, therapists and clients, social workers and youth, as well as parents and their children, can incorporate this accent of contact duration. At their pedagogical best, these relations can be corporeally improvisatory, multilingually responsive, and essentially and durationally tactful. More formal, institutionalized representations of pedagogy can thus be understood as derivative, and too often subversive, of a vital contact with others in the manifold, multilingual worlds we share.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it