Bibliographic record
Abstract
This chapter proposes several modes of resistance that are suggested in three Canadian educational programs with a focus on social and environmental change.Ranging from a grade 12 global education class in a public school in a rural working class community, to a grade 8-10 Montessori mini school in an urban public school, to a non-profit two-year International Baccalaureate (IB) school in a remote residential setting, the programs vary in particular in terms of dominant social class and depth of focus on social and ecological issues.First exploring an understanding of agency as contingent on societal discourses, I then turn to examine how resistance is understood and enacted differently in the three programs.My representation of the data in salient 'portraits of resistance' seeks not to truth-tell, but to question dominant discourses as they affect students' abilities to (un)make themselves in relation to social and ecological issues. Contingent agencyRather than simply 'language in use' , discourse in Foucauldian terms signals an uncertain world comprised of shifting matrices of power and knowledge through which we are constituted (Foucault 1980).Instantiated by means of practices such as language use, traditions of family and culture, and institutions such as school and media, discourses can be understood as having different degrees of authority, with dominant discourses appearing 'natural' or 'true' , denying their own partiality, and supporting and perpetuating existing power relations (Garvey 1997;Pile and Thrift 1995).The discourses dominant in a given time and place constitute the 'subjectivity' of the majority of the people much of time, acting both as, in Foucauldian terminology, 'technologies of power' initiated and enforced by official authorization and as 'technologies of the self ' , internalized means of selfdiscipline (Foucault 1982).Rejecting the humanist notion of 'authenticity' in the individual, this suggests instead that subjectivity is fluid and multi-faceted, with its 39 This chapter is a shortened and otherwise modified version of an article originally
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".