Bibliographic record
Abstract
The opportunity to take familiar curriculum concepts/ideas and re-imag-ine and re-articulate them in ways that facilitate the development of new habits of mind is exciting for me for a number of reasons. First, it brings to the forefront what I have been “preaching ” in my academic work for some time now, namely, that alternative sites for curriculum theorizing could be generated from already established curricular metaphors/concepts and their reflections in practice. Second, the move itself is a recognition that multiple modes of theoretical representation emerge from genuinely valuing alter-native insights and perspectives grounded in a dynamic variety of human experiences, thereby adding richness and complexity to curriculum and curriculum discourse. Third, it is an opportunity for me to closely examine a popular and taken-for-granted curriculum metaphor—“curriculum as cultural practice”—and demonstrate how, historically, it has been mediated through a colonial imagination “contrived to the disbenefit of the other” (London, 2001, p. 45). The intent here is to re-imagine and re-theorize this
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 | 0.010 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.089 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".