Negotiating Liminal Spaces: Purposeful Pedagogy in Diverse Classrooms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper starts with a personal exploration of my life as an African immigrant in North America. I inhabit a liminal space, and this paper explores negotiating life as a person “inbetween” worlds. Notable theories have been put forward concerning liminality (Anzaldúa, 2002, Ledgister, 2001; hooks, 1984). I discuss the origins of liminality and its various permutations with the aim of clarifying what it means to inhabit this space. Liminality represents a powerful vantage point that accords inhabitants, “not just one set of eyes but half a dozen, each of them corresponding to the places you have been…..” (Said, 1988, p. 48). I acknowledge the ability of liminars to analyze circumstances differently, creating alternative ways of knowing and being. My discussion will draw from personal experiences, postcolonial, and feminist theory. In conclusion, I suggest how we can create purposeful pedagogy considering the changing demographic face of our classrooms.
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 | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.027 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| 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".