Bibliographic record
Abstract
Classrooms are commonly constructed as contact zones and educational philosophers have long deliberated the characteristics of that contact.With the changing nature of how young people spend their time both in and out of school, however, new questions of digital liminality ought to be considered.The online world is a space of tensions and contradictions.On one hand, we are alone, facing a screen, and anchored to a void rather than the particularities of this space and time; on the other, we are immersed in possibilities of abundance.The dichotomy produces anxiety, as we are pulled toward the promise of knowledge and community but are simultaneously overwhelmed by a cacophony of information.Technology companies understand this anxiety and seek to exploit it.They design algorithms for the twin purposes of addiction and control. 1 By employing filter bubbles and cultivating echo chambers, they simultaneously satiate our need for belonging and addict us to the prospect of garnering "likes."It is no wonder, then, that we are diminished in our abilities to connect outside of the algorithm or that we find contradictory views abhorrent.If classrooms are diminished places of contact, it is because the online world has stultified our abilities to listen with humility or respond with care.This paper seeks to analyze these evolving digital ontologies, the new information environment, using Emmanuel Levinas's conception of ethical possibility through face-to-face interaction and Hannah Arendt's rendition of the public realm.Levinas offers an ethics of first philosophy that is rooted in encounter.2 He determines that our ability to meet one another face-to-face provides us with the space and time of the Other.This is an Other who is always above us, at a height, and who provokes a dual sense of vulnerability and humility.Levinas writes that this intersubjective relation cultivates possibilities for responsibility and wisdom.The former is demonstrated through the act of listening, such that the self is open to fracture.This fracture of our ego-what Levinas terms
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.002 |
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; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".