Parents shine by their presence in school: making visible the absence in the cogenetic theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: In this paper, I propose extending Tateo’s systemic cogenetic approach in relation with the dimensions of absence and invisibility. I illustrate my proposition in relation to the phenomenon of school-family-community interaction. I further develop my own theoretical work on how the interaction between school and family is constructed amidst tensions between presence versus absence, as well as visibility versus invisibility. This enables integrating the following dimensions in the systemic cogenetic approach: first, the process of making absence visible, invisible and present; and second, the process of rendering invisible the very process of constructing absence. I also delve into the constructive aspect of absence. I propose extending the systemic cogenetic approach in relation with the following aspects: (a) active absence (Goethe) as a way to make the invisible visible on the edge of the phenomenon; (b) the role of boundary in making visible the invisible; (c) boundary case (Non-Non-A) as a flexible designation (considering a phenomenon as A or non-A); and (d) circular and intransitive movement rendering visible the whole range of phenomena in irreversible time. I use the analysis of parents’ and teachers’ discourse as illustration of these theoretical propositions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.051 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".