Sustainability from the Inside Out: The Labyrinth as a Tool for Deepening Conversations in Higher Education
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
First published advance online December 16, 2019This article describes a methodology of convening a community conversation, which took place during the 2018 Workshop on Regional Centres and the Sustainability of Canada’s Rural and Northern Landscapes held at Lakehead University in Thunder Bay, Ontario. In what follows, we both theorize and narrate the use of the labyrinth—a circular, circuitous walking path—as a tool for accessing another way of knowing, and for sharing personal vision for collective reflection and engagement. First, the labyrinth is described as an intervention into business-as-usual in academic, workshop, or conference settings. In this section, we briefly theorize the use of the labyrinth as a form of cultural reinvention. Next, we describe the labyrinth as a dynamic, transformational process that taps into embodied, interior experience, drawing it out into collective view. This process, centred on walking the labyrinth and sitting in a listening circle, challenges participants to identify and express their chief motivating purposes, as well as the internal barriers they face in meeting their most valued aims. Central to this process is attending to the close relationship between experience and reflection, thinking and feeling, and speaking and listening—at both individual and collective levels. The article concludes with observations about how the labyrinth and the listening circle can be used in higher education, and other workplace contexts, as a tool for creating space for fostering sustainability from the inside out.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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