Feeling our Way: A Trioethnography on Critical Affective Literacy for Applied Linguistics
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 argues that attention to affect/emotion be given greater prominence in applied linguistics following a theoretical and pedagogical framework delineated as critical affective literacy (CAL) by Anwaruddin (2016). Following a brief description of key CAL principles, the authors explore the potency of affect and emotionality of texts by way of duo/trioethnography (Norris & Sawyer, 2012, 2017), a research methodology particularly relevant for exploring affective/emotional dimensions of language in educational domains (e.g., English for Academic Purposes, Language Teacher Education, English for Medical Purposes) and as part of broader socio-political deliberation. The authors detail specific features of duoethnographic research methodology (e.g., participant transparency and juxtaposition, epistemological and ideological risk-taking) that contribute to CAL principles and aspirations. In the final sections of the paper, the authors identify several implications of their trioethnography for the development of CAL in applied linguistics followed by brief descriptions of curricular and pedagogical innovation where affect/emotion has been integral to the pedagogical and literacy strategies described. Key Words: affect; emotion; critical affective literacy; duoethnography; democratic pedagogies.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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