RE-CREATING SOCIAL FUTURES: THE ROLE OF THE MORAL IMAGINATION IN STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
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
<p><span style="font-family: Times New Roman;"><span style="color: #131413; font-size: medium;">In this article, we describe a quality of student–teacher relationships that supports re-engagement in alternative education. This quality is based upon the principle of </span><span style="font-size: medium;"><span style="color: #131413;"><em>accept and build</em>: a dialectical principle that simultaneously includes both student and teacher accepting what the other offers in the present moment while building new social futures in relation. We argue that this form of relation is both a means and an outcome of moral imagining. The article is in three sections. We begin by providing a brief review of the literature on student–teacher relationships. Then, drawing together the literature on moral imagination, we describe and exemplify the principle of accept and build with research from Australia and Canada. From this perspective, student–teacher relationships can be positioned as developing projects of the moral imagination with implications for the recreation of social futures. Although the label of “second chance” is often applied pejoratively to alternative and flexible programs, we argue that this should be viewed as a strength rather than a weakness. </span></span></span></p>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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