Staying With the Trouble: Grapplings With the More-Than-Human in a Qualitative Inquiry Course
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article attends to the possibilities that emerged from pedagogical invitation to the more-than-human in a qualitative inquiry course. We focus on the situated ethical and (micro)political grapplings that emerged from paying attention to the more-than-human alongside asymmetrical human and more-than-human lifeworlds. Our orientation toward the ethical and (micro)political is enacted through visual, poetic, and narrative storytelling that attempts to make visible what emerged for the students’ research and their becomings as qualitative inquirers in relation with course pedagogies. Our storytelling enacts a feminist practice that “stays with the trouble” stirred up by decentering the human while remaining accountable to enduring systemic, colonial, racialized, and gendered presences. While the particular lines of flight enacted by the pedagogical invitations in the course differed for each student, they come together in underlining the mattering of pedagogical and inquiry-based attunements toward the more-than-human within unequal worlds.
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 | 0.100 | 0.079 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".