Lives Across Spaces: the Place of Adolescents’ Spatial Experiences in Their Lives as Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this work is to explore the spatial lives of three adolescents in grade nine, between January and May, as they navigated their lives and anticipated their upcoming transition to high school (for students in Grades 10 – 12), with an interest in equitable access to International Baccalaureate programs. Researched in Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada, in a context where access to IB was a student choice, free of cost, and void of consideration regarding academic history, the students involved in this study came from neighborhoods that have been historically marginalized from participation in IB, regardless of this “open access” policy. Methodologically, this study is grounded in spatial theory (hooks 1989; Lefebvre, 1979, 1991; Soja, 1996, 2010) and draws on narrative (Clandinin & Connelly, 2000; Naraian, 2017) and ethnographic techniques (Emerson, Fretz & Shaw, 1995; LeCompte & Schensul, 1999; Merriam, 2009), using an a/r/tographic stance, that is Artist, Researcher, Teacher positionality (Fendler, 2013; Irwin & Springgay, 2008) as a way to conceptualize the adolescents lives in and outside of school. The research questions address: how adolescents define, describe and map the spaces where they spend time; how they describe their identities, experiences and relationships across space and time; and, what connections they make between engaging in this process and their perceptions about high school. The findings suggest that the spatial stories of adolescents matter, are complex, and provide insight into the ways in which they navigate their worlds and make decisions about their academic futures. Methodologically, using a narrative and ethnographically inspired a/r/tographic approach to exploring the spatial lives of adolescents was useful and generative in terms of eliciting insight and understanding of their complex lives in and out of school. Finally, the findings suggest that for schools seeking to become more inclusive of historically marginalized adolescents, they may need to reconsider an approach that pulls marginalized youth into the “main body” (hooks, 1989), and, instead, travel to the “margin” (hooks, 1989) to re-conceptualize and design programs from there, the “space of radical openness” (hooks, 1989).
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".