Extemporaneous Lessons on Place, Space, and Identity: Graffiti as a Pedagogical Disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this interdisciplinary article, we employ scholarship from educational studies, cultural studies, geography, and sociology. We use graffiti texts we have encountered ourselves in places where we have lived or visited as examples of how graffiti becomes pedagogical. Theoretically, the concepts of public pedagogy, new mobilities, and affect theory — notably Sara Ahmed’s ideas — complement Doreen Massey’s ideas about place, space, and identity, and are cornerstones of our framework. As we consider them, pedagogy and learning are multidimensional processes, which involve intellect or cognition, affect or emotion, sensation, and perception. Place, space, and identity are taken up as sociomaterial phenomena, whose meanings develop as people, texts, physical structures, and various cultural artifacts come into contact with one another and with ideologies about what is (ab)normal and (un)desirable that circulate throughout and across societies. In presenting and discussing examples of graffiti texts we have encountered where we live or visit, we identify three pedagogical purposes that graffiti artists might employ: contemplation, reflection, and action. We close by considering implications for teaching and learning across disciplines, age groups, and context.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".