Inclusion and exclusion in classroom practices
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter refers to discourses around performativity, which consider space and spatiality but also the establishment of boundaries, transitions, and territories, as central aspects of social processes and relationships. The authors present the emetatheoretical categories of the Praxeological Sociology of Knowledge as a perspective on spatial qualitative research on inclusion. Additionally, the chapter refers to the connection between power, visualization, and degradation related to space in classroom practices. This is followed by a short description of the methodology used: an empirical approach to the spatiality and performativity of classroom practice with the help of videographies analyzed using the Documentary Method. In order to account for the inherent logic of the conjunctive space of experience on which the classroom practice is based, data from secondary schools in Switzerland and Canada are examined in a comparative analysis. At the same time, the (transnational) comparison allows interesting insights into both similarities and differences regarding the (experiential) spatial constitution of classroom practice. A conclusion summarizes the main results and discusses the meaning of the proposed praxeological-sociological view of social spaces for the approach of reconstructive inclusion research.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".