Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter explores the critical learning experiences of 12 L.E.A.D. students pursuing a Bachelor of Education. Among all 10 of the Bachelor of Education courses taken by this group of students, the L.E.A.D. course was consistently cited as being one of the most valuable critical learning spaces. The analysis revealed that two main pedagogical approaches were perceived as instrumental to the critical learning experiences taking place in the L.E.A.D. course: 1)Agency opportunities, and 2) the enactment of a legitimate power on behalf of the L.E.A.D. professors. Various aspects of each of these two pedagogical phenomena are discussed in detail. While not a panacea for overcoming the neoliberal policies and practices of higher education, the philosophy and curriculum of L.E.A.D. coalesced with these two pedagogical phenomena and created a space for critical reflection, active listening for understanding, and mutual respect between teacher candidates and critically minded their professors.
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 | 0.014 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.055 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.027 | 0.029 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.003 |
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".