“Forget about the learning”? Technology expertise and creativity as experiential habit in hacker-/makerspaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper discusses to what extent hacker- and makerspaces (HMS) facilitate technology expertise. It draws on a combined qualitative interview and survey study of current/former community members. Study participants relate that HMS encourage learning-by-doing and self-directed creativity involving digital technology and crafts. Despite some being hesitant to label what they do as learning, a notion strongly associated with primary/secondary school, creativity itself is considered a learning ability and an experiential habit: a skill to be nurtured in practice. Members tend to expect that a self-directed approach to technological creativity is cultivated by new members too. As a “rite of passage”, this has implications for members’ in- and exclusion: notably creating challenges for individuals from already underrepresented groups and those perceiving themselves as comparatively low-skilled in technology. While learning and technology expertise are thus potentially facilitated in HMS, this is not equally the case for all members.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it