The<i>Leadership-of-Nonleadership</i>in Art and Its Teaching: An Immanent Conversation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In what follows, we position our differing conceptualizations of leadership in art education adjacent to one another for readers to explore their contingent performativity. Accordingly, we are emulating the convergence of papers, ours and those of other scholars, artists, and teachers who, at the 2016 National Art Education Association Convention, addressed the theme of leadership cross-pollination. Considering that the presenters’ address of this theme constituted a contingent multiplicity of artistic and scholarly perspectives suggests that the event of the conference likewise constituted an ideational assemblage and art education a field of immanent research and practice. As immanent forces, both the conference and the field of art education offered attendees opportunities to experience leadership cross-pollination from in-between and across the differing papers and presentations. It is that immanent performativity that we are inviting readers to summon as they perform an experimental reading in-between and across our two writings on the leadership-of-nonleadership in art education.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".