Bibliographic record
Abstract
Though seemingly contradictory at first glance, Jane R. Martin's argument for a school that embodies the qualities of home and Cris Mayo's call for educational practices that invite discomfort may appear more complementary to each other on closer inspection.While Martin's book The Schoolhome 1 focuses primarily on students who come from uncomfortable environments to begin with, it seems to allow for expansion in order to address Mayo's concerns about teaching students in positions of social privilege.What I will be arguing in this paper is that, despite their apparent differences, the educational theories of Martin and Mayo might be read to hold a certain compatibility.I would therefore like to examine what sort of theory might be created if the two are combined, and look at whether or not this hybrid theory provides a more adequate approach to anti-oppression education.I would first like to provide for my readers a brief account of Martin's and Mayo's work, while exploring some of the limitations of each theory.I would then like to discuss how some of these limitations might be overcome through a rereading of Martin's and Mayo's work as compatible.Although Mayo criticizes notions of education that center on making students feel at home, I argue that Martin's vision of the Schoolhome allows, if not calls for, students to experience the discomfort of stunned confusion at the recognition of "their own socially acceptable ignorance." 2 If Martin's work can be read in this way, then perhaps her theory of education can be seen to address systemic oppression more adequately than Mayo might think.Though I do not want to suggest that Martin's theory of education as laid out in The Schoolhome is without limitations, I do think that, by taking Mayo's theory and criticisms into account, the Schoolhome can perhaps be renovated to better meet the needs of all students, not just the young and marginalized.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.029 | 0.003 |
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".