Book Review: Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: Exclusions and Student Subjectivities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few books are empirically grounded and theoretically sophisticated.Even fewer make a genuine advance in helping us to comprehend how, on a day-to-day basis, educational inclusions are made and exclusions can be resisted.Impossible Bodies, Impossible Selves: exclusions and student subjectivities is such a book.Deborah Youdell refutes the charge that poststructuralist work cannot adequately deal with inequity and the daily politics of education (e.g.Hill et al, 1999), and, in a sense, this book aims to reclaim and propose a politics of the 'post'.The book is organised into five sections, with two broad themes.The first theme is concerned with questions of context, theory and method.Youdell repositions notions of social and educational inclusion and exclusion, and asserts that a focus on education as the benign mechanism for inclusion does not allow for a more fundamental questioning of how the institution of formal education, and school institutions, are themselves implicated in excluding students from the educational endeavour, from schooling, through their own processes and practices.(p.12)
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.023 |
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".