New Obligations and Shared Vulnerabilities: Reimagining Sustainability for Live-Able Worlds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STEM and sustainability education have become established concepts in what are understood to be progressive Canadian early childhood (EC) programs, often framed as a conduit for building more sustainable futures. But, how young children learn about ecological systems creates material consequences in the world. In an action research, inquiry-based study on the West Coast of Canada, we use arts-based collaborative methods and a feminist environmental framework to unsettle the foundational logics continuing to uphold the untenable patterns of living that children are learning to contend with. Recognizing the importance of promoting livable futures as a central concern to educators, practitioners and researchers in the field, this article invites reflection of the field’s dual obsession with enhancing children’s cognitive development and perpetuating notions of a pure and separate sphere within which childhood is imagined to exist. It explores the potential of looking within our pedagogies and practices for potential complicities in promoting the very conditions we seek to change. This research proposes a common worlding approach in early childhood education as a method for shifting anthropocentric understandings about the so-called ‘natural world’ and our place in it. In particular, it raises concerns with capitalist and colonial values that continue to permeate popularized STEM and sustainability frameworks in North America.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.082 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".