MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564334275

Critiquing and Transcending STEM

2016· article· en· W2564334275 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for Activist Science and Technology Education · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUniversity Challenges and Reforms
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSubjectivityGovernmentalityNeoliberalism (international relations)CurriculumState (computer science)SociologyEpistemologyScience educationEngineering ethicsPolitical sciencePedagogyEnvironmental ethicsSocial scienceEngineeringLawComputer sciencePhilosophy
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper examines STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) as a form of neoliberal governmentality. It looks at the NGSS as a vehicle for a particular entrepreneurial subjectivity. It also examines the repression of earlier forms of scientific subjectivity. It then moves on to consider both the strategies teachers can take to resist neoliberalism more generally and STEM specifically. It resists suggesting alternative curriculum, but instead focuses on the role of teachers collectively working to change the material conditions of schooling. Finally, the paper considers what science education might look like in a post-neoliberal state.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.881
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.321 · 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