Bibliographic record
Abstract
Walking pedagogies provide opportunities for embracing diversity, at the same time that they honour a relationship with the Earth. As such, they can be used to encourage learners and curriculum makers to attune to their surroundings. Walking and writing together, though from disparate geographical locations, we provoke critical reflections on ableism through walking pedagogies. Inspired by our surroundings, we explicate and query curriculum experiences and the pedagogical reflections that accompany them/us, holding space for (dis)abilities. Co-constructed poetries frame our autoethnographic engagements with theory and practice. We offer two ways walking pedagogies may be engaged to disrupt ableism: walking to “disorient the norm” (Parrey, 2020) in the first instance, and moving as listening in the second. Through these disruptions to ableist discourses, we attend to ongoing circumstances of curriculum-making, attuning to the noise of walking in nature, where some have unrestricted access, some have partial access and some have no access at all.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".