RE-CREATING SOCIAL FUTURES: THE ROLE OF THE MORAL IMAGINATION IN STUDENT–TEACHER RELATIONSHIPS IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION
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.
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 | 0.016 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.065 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 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".