MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3202239892 · doi:10.14288/tci.v18i1.196168

Living Impotentially: An Allegorical Inquiry

2021· article· en· W3202239892 on OpenAlexaff
Ying Ma

Bibliographic record

VenueTransnational curriculum inquiry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUndoingAllegoryRelevance (law)CurriculumEpistemologySpace (punctuation)SociologyAestheticsPsychologyPedagogyPsychoanalysisPhilosophyLinguisticsLiteratureArtPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper challenges the reduced understanding of schools as places for students to learn the useful towards tomorrow and explores alternate languages to understand schools more educationally. It mainly appropriates Agamben’s and Lewis’ conceptualizations of impotentiality with particular attention to its relevance to and implications for education. Allegory as a curriculum concept is adopted methodologically to unpack and reactivate the fragmented, nuanced and autobiographical stories, exploring what might count as living impotentially. Through the allegorical re-searching in my own stories in relationship with others, I find that living impotentially involves overlapping and recursive moments, including yielding and suspending, wondering and wandering and dis/re/connecting, which jointly contribute to one’s becoming/unbecoming and doing/undoing. Finally, I briefly discuss Laozi’s dao and how it could speak to impotentiality in dao’s dynamic stillness. Skhole, a place originally meant for free time, yearns for a space of impotentiality, inviting each one of us to return to ourselves, to understand ourselves better as a human being.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0110.075
Scholarly communication0.0080.019
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.060
GPT teacher head0.367
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransnational curriculum inquiry→Same topicPolitical Theology and Sovereignty→French-language works237,207→