MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3215986679 · doi:10.1093/llc/fqab098

Finding our way home: A theory and pedagogy of anti-colonial Q-mapping

2021· article· en· W3215986679 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
R.K. Gairola

Bibliographic record

VenueDigital Scholarship in the Humanities · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicAnthropological Studies and Insights
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSociologyQueerColonialismGender studiesIdeologyQueer theoryFeminismCritical race theoryDigital storytellingHuman sexualityRace (biology)Media studiesPedagogyPolitical sciencePoliticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This brief-report details my experiences teaching critical theory at the intersection of race/ class/ gender/ sexuality/ nationality through analogue mapping exercises from my tutorial room at Murdoch University in Western Australia to a group mapping project at the 2018 Digital Humanities Summer Institute (DHSI) at the University of Victoria, Canada (UVic). Given the proximity of both countries to the history of the British Empire and current affiliation of both with the Commonwealth, my report details teaching efforts to mediate against a “pedagogy of the digitally oppressed.” In drawing on the formative concept offered by Brazilian educator-theorist Paulo Freire, I juxtapose the analogue mapping exercises through interposed lens of postcolonial, race, and queer theory. Recognizing the dominant ideologies encoded within technology, I narrate the process in which team members and I from the QDH: Queer Digital Humanities seminar produced participatory, de-centralized maps as counter sites of identity to the colonialist spaces and insignias on the UVic campus. I conclude with collective queer of colour principles which undergird the DHSI exercise, which is a modality of what might best be described as “anti-colonial Q-mapping.”

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.715
Threshold uncertainty score0.788

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 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 venueDigital Scholarship in the HumanitiesSame topicAnthropological Studies and InsightsFrench-language works237,207