MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908162555 · doi:10.1177/1053825918820694

Beings Who Are Becoming: Enhancing Social Justice Literacy

2019· article· en· W2908162555 on OpenAlexaff
Mary Breunig

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Experiential Education · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicOutdoor and Experiential Education
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExperiential learningSociologyIntersectionalityLiteracyNarrativeEconomic JusticePrivilege (computing)Experiential knowledgePedagogyPsychologyEpistemologyGender studiesPolitical scienceLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The Association for Experiential Education identifies social justice as one of its core values. One recent state of knowledge paper explored the confluence of outdoor experiential education and social justice. Social justice theory embraces the idea that social identities do not exist independently. Rather, race, class, sexuality, skin color, and gender (among other identities) exist in intersectionality. Purpose: This article adopts an intersectional approach to review relevant literature and to provide narrative illustrations that offer insights into the concept of social justice literacy. Methodology/Approach: The article is conceptual and adopts an intersectional approach, highlighting relevant literature, theories, and narratives. Findings/Conclusions: The article illuminates prevalent issues and offers practical insights for facilitators and educators on how to enhance social justice literacy and praxes. Implications: The article provides opportunities for outdoor experiential educators to better understand their own privilege and to develop new understandings and actionable behaviors.

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)0.003
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: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.007
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.009
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.367 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations28
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Experiential EducationSame topicOutdoor and Experiential EducationFrench-language works237,207