Bibliographic record
Abstract
This personal philosophical reflection on outdoor learning invites consideration of wider horizons of possibility around the constructs of when and where we learn in relation to phronêsis, practical wisdom, and notions of kairós and tópos. The work aspires to re-infuse the three back into broader educational aims through practices of local learning outdoors. The treatise applies a pragmatic methodology, formed by tracing bearings based on field data gathered from life experiences, and uses triangulation techniques to bind the tracings, via the method of story-mapping, into a woven place-binding knot map. The work imagines phronêsis as leadership that may be developed at school through time spent adventuring and learning in local outdoor contexts. Local outdoors is positioned as a pragmatic means of engaging in useful learning, defined as learning for health and wellbeing, relationships with more-than-humans, and experiences. The resultant place-binding knot map, while messy, may offer insights for learners, educators, and scholars around phronêsis, kairós, and tópos in learning, leadership, and local outdoors.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.037 | 0.044 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".