Patchworking Response-ability in Science and Technology 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
Within science and technology education, concepts of justice, in/equity, and ethics within science education are simultaneously ubiquitous, necessary, yet un(der)theorized. Consequently, the potential for reproducing and reifying systems of power remains ever present. In response, there is a recent but growing movement within science and technology education that follows the call by Kayumova and colleagues (2019) to move “from empowerment to response-ability.” It is a call to collectively organize, reconfigure, and reimagine science and technology education by taking seriously critiques of Western modern science and technology from its co-constitutive exteriority (e.g., feminist critiques). Herein, we pursue the (re)opening of responsiveness with/in methodology by juxtaposing differential, partial, and situated accounts of response-ability: de/colonizing the Anthropocene in science teacher education in Canada (Higgins); speculative fiction at the science-ethics nexus in secondary schooling in Australia (Mahy); and a reciprocal model for teaching and learning computational competencies with Latinx youth in the US (Aghasaleh and Enderle).
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 | 0.033 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it