Bibliographic record
Abstract
This essay describes the development of a compassionate pedagogy by way of three experiences the authors had as co-teachers in an experimental, first-year, integrated, cohort-based program in the Arts, Social Sciences and Humanities. In attempting to build a curriculum to tackle the “fragmented and incoherent educational experience” (Marra & Palmer, 2008, p. 113) that privileges answer-mining over the understanding of scholarship as a conversation among “essentially contested ideas” (Gallie, 1955), we found that our program reproduced the very restrictive, top-down, positivistic paradigms we sought to overcome. In reimagining the program and our role as teachers, we took our cue from the story of Charm, or Sky Woman, as told in Thomas King’s Massey Lecture, The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative, in which Western hierarchical paradigms of creation are challenged by a First Nations story of collaboration and co-creation. Compassionate pedagogy, we learned from our experiences as co-teachers, cannot be developed in the abstract; rather, it must be grounded in the unique material circumstances of a classroom. Compassionate pedagogy arises from the contestation of and collaboration between ways of knowing that, if embraced, can be deeply unsettling and transformative. The experiences described here both incited change in our understanding of our vocation and provided us with a model of negotiation, accommodation and resistance that we have carried beyond the program into other areas of our professional and personal lives. Our encounter with First Nations ways of knowing, both in the King lectures and in a traditional Dakelh pit house, challenged our unexamined assumptions about education and pushed us toward a pedagogy that is flexible, that legitimizes the needs of the whole learner, and that resists an entrenched institutional paradigm of suffering by advocating for an alternative one: the right to be well.
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 | 0.006 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".