Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this presentation is to share the findings of an ongoing national research study designed to engage English Language Arts teachers in exploring issues of social justice through the reading of postcolonial literary texts. Here we will analyze two moments of resistance. One emerged while discussing Indigenous literature with an inquiry group of teachers formed to discuss postcolonial literature and theory, and the other, discussing the Indigenous novel of Richard Wagamese Indian Horse (2012) in an 11 grade English Language Arts class . These moments illustrate how epistemic accuracy, formalism and structuralism (representing specific theoretical approaches and methodological dispositions) used by teachers and students, hinder the comprehension of colonial dynamics. To address the complexities that stem from these situations, we propose a critical pedagogy, underpinned by dialogical principles, that allows the discursive expression of oppressive views with the purpose of subjecting them to deliberatory criticism. This study shows how the implementation of a curricular postcolonial agenda encounters opposition, and allows us to imagine ways to capitalize on resistance to foster recognition (Fraser, 2005) as a pivotal dimension of justice in the process of literary interpretation.
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 | 0.015 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.016 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| 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".