School Science Students Developing and Mobilizing Eco-Just Engineering Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In many contexts worldwide, educators are encouraged to integrate aspects of the traditionally-isolated disciplines, science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM). Among variants of STEM education, promotion of engineering design and consciousness of engineering processes, products and services seem particularly prevalent. Innovations/inventions from STEM are said, for instance, to improve people’s lives and to contribute to jurisdictional economic competitiveness. While there are numerous defenders of such foci, several scholars suggest that many STEM education initiatives minimize or alter students’ consciousness of harms to living and nonliving things associated with influences of powerful people (e.g., financiers) and groups (corporations, think tanks, trade organizations, etc.) on fields of science and technology and on many other entities. Accordingly, we report findings from action research involving a secondary school science teacher’s effort to educate students about such problematic relationships and, for areas of their concern, and to encourage them to design and implement STEM-based engineering products that perform intended functions and also addressed matters of social and/or ecological justice. Students developed, for example, a candle recycling device made from waste material, 3D-printed athletic shoes made from biodegradable material and 3D-printed paralletes supports (also biodegradable) for calisthenics training. At the same time, work still seems necessary to help students with abstract concepts like immutable mobiles and techniques for mobilizing such more eco-just technologies across multiple context to perhaps generate an assemblage of co-supportive living, nonliving and symbolic actants. Claims from Science and Technology Studies, such as sociotechnical imaginaries, show great promise in this regard.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.006 |
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".