MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2896296422 · doi:10.25071/1916-4467.40365

Epiphany in Waiting

2018· article· en· W2896296422 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Anar Rajabali

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicPhilosophy, Ethics, and Existentialism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpiphanyMeaning (existential)AestheticsGestureFeelingEvent (particle physics)Space (punctuation)SociologyVisual artsArtEpistemologyPhilosophyLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rumi writes “Keep walking, though there’s no place to get to. Don’t try to see through the distances . . . move within” (Barks, 1997, p. 278). In this lyrical essay, I begin by enacting a walk I took with my mother along the ocean. I poetically dwell in a sensual phenomenological inquiry where I attune to the experience of this walk as it is unfolding: the images, the colours, the gestures, the scents, the sounds and the silences. Through the (re)telling of this pivotal event, I am then transported to the past, where I (re)enter a painful moment in a classroom. As in the line of the altering hues of the horizon that we walk alongside of, I relinquish to this line of inquiry. As I theorize this space in between the present and the past, I am brought to an epiphany and transcend both experiences into a renewed understanding of my pedagogical self. Here, I learn how the body holds the words; and in poetry as a physical, emotional, and spiritual walking through, I then enter into a place of light. The keen lessons of an encountering give in healing and meaning, illuminating the future with promise and with purpose.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0180.020
Scholarly communication0.0080.011
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0030.009
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0340.006

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum StudiesSame topicPhilosophy, Ethics, and ExistentialismFrench-language works237,207