MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2903956227 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v11i1.595

The Materiality of the Pedagogical Encounter

2018· article· en· W2903956227 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation Pedagogy and Practices
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMateriality (auditing)ConceptualizationScholarshipActor–network theoryAgency (philosophy)SociologyPerspective (graphical)EpistemologyAestheticsPedagogySocial scienceArtLinguisticsVisual artsPhilosophyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Pedagogical analyses have traditionally centered on teachers and students. Some approaches, like Reggio Emilia have moved beyond the binary to include the environment as a third entity. While including the environment is, no doubt, important in recognizing the composition of pedagogical encounters, we propose to expand our understanding of pedagogical encounters further to include the actors whose agency might be playing a role in their conceptualization. Drawing on Bruno Latour’s Actor-Network Theory and related educational scholarship, we examine the materiality of a pedagogical encounter and consider all those varied and diverse entities, their associations, and accorded agency, that bring them into being and have implications in the becoming of students. The point of understanding pedagogical encounters from an ANT perspective is that it allows us to challenge taken-for-granted notions about what pedagogical encounters entail and the becoming of students within them.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.196
GPT teacher head0.539
Teacher spread0.343 · 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