Centering Critical Youth Research Methodologies of Praxis and Care in Post-Pandemic Times: From Respectful Relations and Dialogue Towards New Imaginaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To center critical youth research methodologies of praxis and care in post-pandemic times, we bring together youth and researchers from four different partnership projects.Through dialogue circles with and between youth, we desettle taken-for-granted perspectives on research in the Learning Sciences.We ask: 1) How does engagement in co-creation and partnership projects offer all partners opportunities to reimagine research in education, a re-envisioning of it as humanizing and grounded in respectful relations ?; 2) What does it look and feel like at the beginning, when relations are established, and later, as they are maintained through joint work and critical reflections about learning, teaching, and becoming?; and 3) How does such joint-work support new future imaginaries for humanizing learning opportunities and meaningful joint research?A co-creation project will be pursued simultaneously, mediated by a local artist and further enriched by the discussant, leaving traces of the exchanges and shared with the larger community.
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 | 0.121 | 0.062 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.032 | 0.088 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.033 | 0.028 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.046 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".