MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3105408247 · doi:10.18357/jcs00019126

Living Speculative Pedagogies as Boundary-Crossing Dialogues

2020· article· en· W3105408247 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
B. Denise Hodgins, Narda Nelson, Sherri-Lynn Yazbeck, Xiao-Feng Ke, Rosalind Turcotte

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Childhood Studies · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Critical Thinking Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsActive listeningCurriculumSociologyFrame (networking)PedagogySPARK (programming language)EpistemologyPhilosophyComputer scienceCommunication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article shares the experience of expanding what was initiated at the SPARK conference as one example of engaging pedagogical development as an ongoing critically reflective boundary-crossing dialogue. It extends conversations in relation to a climate change inquiry project that explored thinking with trees by revisiting a concept integral to our inquiry—listening— in order to critically interrogate our pedagogical assumptions, actions, and aspirations. This approach to curriculum and pedagogy keeps the question “Now what?” continuously in the frame as a guide for living unfinished, uncertain, and speculative doings and dialogues in the classroom.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.312
Threshold uncertainty score0.896

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.111
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.293 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Childhood StudiesSame topicEducation and Critical Thinking DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207