MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2596026843 · doi:10.1080/1358684x.2016.1271277

Dreaming the Unstable Wings of Desire: Unseen, Educational Bruisings and The Elusive Self of Literature

2017· article· en· W2596026843 on OpenAlexaff
David Lewkowich, Jillian Pasieka

Bibliographic record

VenueChanging English · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDreamNarrativeFantasyReading (process)AestheticsPsychoanalysisPsychoanalytic theoryPsychologyEpistemologyLiteraturePhilosophyArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When it comes to education, the dream cannot be controlled by the strictures of language or the conscious mind, and in its insistently disobedient character, is unwilling to submit to the demands of a deliberate and conscious curriculum. Indeed, we might say that what dreams represent is the absence of education itself, and a mobile energy antithetical to a fantasy of smoothly functioning teaching. In this article, we approach the question of dreaming’s place in education through two intertwined lenses: the conceptual and the literary. First, we intersperse throughout our paper excerpts from an untitled fictional narrative about a group of students who become progressively more beaten up, and whose teacher is unable to see their bruises, as they embark on the precarious task of expressing their dreaming, creative selves. We also turn to psychoanalytic theory (and, in particular, Thomas Ogden’s theory of dream thinking) to discuss the significance of the impenetrable nature of the dream, and ask how such qualities of unrepresentability might challenge our desires for answerable questions and legible answers. We end this piece with a recognition of the ways in which shared experiences of reading and writing may also support a place for dreams.

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 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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.845

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 studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueChanging EnglishSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207