Reflexivity through practice-informed student journals: how “sustainable wellbeing” relates to teleoaffectivities
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
The COVID-19 pandemic that first swept across the world in 2020 led to disruptions in habits and routines—central themes in social practice approaches to consumption. Teaching was also disrupted: the move to online classes forced the development of new modalities of teaching and learning. As a result, a group of social science instructors in a “sustainable consumption” network came together to engage students in a reflexivity exercise through weekly journal entries at four universities located in Switzerland, Germany, and Ireland. The students were invited to document how their everyday practi- ces were changing, and how these reported changes related to “sustainable wellbeing.” Further, they were encouraged to reflect on how notions of the collective were reima- gined in light of the uncertain sanitary situation. Our analyses show how individual well- being is tied to time and social interactions, which are both structured by spatial arrangements. We also discuss how students situate changes in relation to broader, soci- etal trends, hinting at how “sustainable wellbeing” contrasts with other teleoaffective for- mations such as economic health. We conclude with a discussion around the implications of the journaling method in relation to other participatory processes toward the norma- tive aim of a good life for all.
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 | 0.007 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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