Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose To illuminate the concepts of aesthetic experience and wide-awakeness in the philosophy of Maxine Greene by using the aesthetic approaches she discussed - in this case, using the comic book form as a means of visually embodying and extending her ideas. Setting In Maxine Greene's living room, the view through the window, and on the sidewalk across the street from her apartment—under the tree that she looked upon each day. Research Design Philosophical-aesthetic inquiry. Conclusions/Recommendations This philosophical-aesthetic inquiry has left us with more questions than answers as we engaged in an imaginative dialogue with Maxine Greene. Maxine lived her philosophy not just in her work, but in her daily life. Her lived example leaves us with some of the following questions: How do we—as educators, researchers, and philosophers—reconcile the separation between our intellectual lives and personal lives? What does it mean to cultivate our imaginative capacities for social change? How do we see the unseen? How do we see movements in what seems static, and changes in what seems permanent? How do we refuse to accept given “truth” as true and so-called “reality” as real? How do we attend our world anew each day? Maxine's method of asking, rather than answering, opened her to seeing greater possibilities in her world. And it is this attitude for seeing and for asking rather than any “ism” that we take into our own work and seek to convey with this piece.
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 | 0.005 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.018 | 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".