Navigating complexity, culture, collaboration, and emotion: student perspectives on global justice and global justice education
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent years have seen increasing scholarly attention to the ways in which colleges and universities might contribute to educating ‘global citizens’ who work toward addressing injustice and inequity. The present study examines the experiences and perspectives of students participating in an upper level ‘global justice inquiry’ course designed to help meet this goal. Drawing from interviews with students and reflections submitted as part of their course assessment, we explore participants’ developing understanding of global justice and their experiences of learning about this topic. This investigation reveals key issues that students highlight and with which they sometimes struggle, including the complexity of global challenges, the importance of collaboration in attempting to address such challenges, the significance of navigating cultural considerations, and the potential influence of emotion on understanding and action. Implications of these findings, including the potential value of considering these issues as threshold concepts in global justice education, are discussed.
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 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 | 0.002 | 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 it