Cultivating an Aesthetic Sensibility: Everyday Aesthetics and Environmental Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The place of activism in environmental education is an ongoing conversation among educators. In this article I highlight an area that has received minimal at-tention within that conversation: aesthetics and activism. While activism can be enacted at the personal and public levels, I focus on the personal level of activism as I discuss links between everyday aesthetics and activism and the importance of cultivating an aesthetic sensibility. I then share narrative, poetic, and photographic excerpts from a mapwork project titled Bodies of Water: Partial Companion to a Prairie Atlas. This project enacts aesthetics and activism on a local, everyday level, and has implications for the global, public level. I invite educators to consider similar approaches to activism by paying attention to local ecological components. -- Resume Les educateurs debattent regulierement de la place de l’activisme dans l’education a l’environnement. Ces conversations ont tendance a laisser dans l’ombre la relation entre activisme et esthetique, relation que je me propose de mettre en lumiere ici. Si l’activisme peut aussi se deployer dans la sphere publique, je m’interesse surtout a sa place dans la sphere personnelle et a ses liens avec l’esthetique du quotidien. En quoi, par exemple, l’activisme nourrit-il la sensibilite esthetique? Je presente egalement des passages poetiques et narratifs, de meme que des cliches photographiques tires d’un projet cartographique intitule Bodies of Water : Partial Companion to a Prairie Atlas. Ce projet met de l’avant differentes manifestations locales et quotidiennes de l’activisme et de l’esthetique, qui ont aussi une incidence dans la sphere publique, de maniere plus vaste. J’invite les educateurs a considerer ce type d’approches en portant attention aux composantes ecologiques locales.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".