When critical stances become scripted: Impediments to resonant dialogue in the education classroom
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay, a speculative work, suggests that educational encounters of critical theory and pedagogy are today too often hampered by an emerging form of schooled reproduction in which university learners perform critical stances in order to garner recognition rather than for reasons of intellectual or political commitment. It suggests that the performance of these stances contributes to discursive conformity and threatens the vitality of the critical university classroom. It then pursues a strand of argument that considers two emerging, interrelated paradoxes of critical classroom practice, each indicative of how scripted critical stances can function as impediments to resonant educational encounters. The first, referred to as the ‘cultural capital paradox’, suggests that where expressions of critical theory and pedagogy are prized, a danger lurks that students may perform criticality simply to garner approval. The second, referred to as the ‘linguistic formalism paradox’, takes up the politics of language usage and positions some of its current contestations as impediments to the sustenance and success of the critical dialogical sphere.
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 | 0.029 | 0.167 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.037 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".