Ripples of Becoming-With: Co-creating a Postdisciplinary Module About Posthumanism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article provides a diffractive reading of the second-year undergraduate university module on posthumanism that I teach. The module is designed specifically for mature students. I consider the “postdisciplinary” nature of the module, and think through the ways in which the module “becomes” through co-creation with the students. This involves a discussion of Braidotti’s (2019) notion of the posthuman university, Lykke’s (2018) conception of the postdisciplinary, and Barad’s (2007) and Haraway’s (2016) imperatives to (1) think-with, and (2) be response-able within multispecies communities. Using these ideas, I consider the unexpected directions in which the students take the module. I attend to how it changes through their entangled discussions. I share how I designed the module and its assessment and discuss some of the texts and issues we bring into our learning community. Throughout, I advocate for an affirmative approach to social justice in higher education pedagogy that acknowledges the partiality and situatedness of knowledge, recognizes interdependence, and the need for affinity.
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 | 0.008 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".