MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

From Critical Theory to Critical Practice

2018· book-chapter· en· W2801393159 on OpenAlexaffabout
Howard A. Doughty

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in standardization research · 2018
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUniversity Challenges and Reforms
Canadian institutionsSeneca Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdeologyProletariatCommunismMarxist philosophySociologyCapitalismAuthoritarianismPessimismCritical theoryClass consciousnessCritical practiceCritical consciousnessSocial sciencePolitical sciencePolitical economyEpistemologyLawPedagogyPoliticsDemocracyPhilosophy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The failure of Marxism to account for the rise of fascism and Nazism; the establishment of authoritarian regimes where “communist” revolutions had occurred, largely in pre-industrial societies; and the incapacity of the proletariat to develop class consciousness and foment class conflict in advanced industrial societies led the members of the Frankfurt School to revise and adapt Marxism to twentieth century realities. While relentlessly critical of capitalism, they tended to be pessimistic about the possibility of revolution. The leader of the “second generation” of the critical theorists, Jürgen Habermas, moved on from the Marxist foundation to develop a more comprehensive, pragmatic, communications-based model of modern life, which gained support among left-leaning intellectuals. This chapter relates some of Habermas' insights to the practical problems of faculty in community colleges in Ontario, Canada as they confront neoliberal ideology and practice and work to challenge power relations and pedagogy in the workplace.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.114

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0070.053
Scholarly communication0.0130.010
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.008
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.079
GPT teacher head0.512
Teacher spread0.433 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in standardization researchSame topicUniversity Challenges and ReformsFrench-language works237,207