MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2329496090

(re)imagining education as an un-coercive re-arrangement of desires

2016· article· en· W2329496090 on OpenAlex

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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueOther Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArgument (complex analysis)NormativeOrder (exchange)PoetryLogos Bible SoftwarePerformativitySociologyEpistemologyAestheticsLinguisticsLiteraturePhilosophyArtTheology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This text was first performed at the International Association for the Advancement of Curriculum Studies Conference in Ottawa on 29 May, 2015, where I took the liberty and the risk of deviating from the academic genre. However, I modified the text here in written form to adjust expectations to this form of communication. In this text, I use story telling, metaphors and poetry to introduce an argument that is not self-evident and does not produce a single normative claim for the way forward. The stories and metaphors I use come from different teachings, from multiple locations. What they have in common is their performativity: their potential to re-orient logos/logic in order to make room for the ineffable. In other words: instead of talking about an “un-coercive re-arrangement of desires” (Spivak, 2004, p. 526), the text invites you to live this possibility, for a moment...

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.728
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.249 · 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