Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this theoretical and provocative paper our aim is to problematize universal ideals, and the closely related belief in educationalization, that frame education today. Inspired by the ethico-political work of Agamben ([2007]. Profanations. New York: Zone Books), and his focus on profane acts of play, and Zupančič's ([2008]. The odd one in: One comedy. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press) psychoanalytical adaptation of Hegel's ‘concrete universal', we illustrate how universal ideals and beliefs often ‘fail' in comic absurd ways when they are performed in concrete practices. By analyzing different examples, which stem from the research literature, we describe how such ‘failure' looks. We argue that it is important to engage with the comic absurd as doing so can reveal how educators, politicians, and policymakers contribute to the (re)production of failures within the socio-symbolic (educational) order. However, such an engagement may enable us to ‘fail better’ in education if we also allow ourselves to question, challenge, and perhaps change this order by means of profane acts.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.077 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".