Extemporaneous Lessons on Place, Space, and Identity: Graffiti as a Pedagogical Disruption
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.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.781 | 0.594 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.434 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.595 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it