Bonding across difference in beloved community: subverting the politics of domination in school
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the whole-school use of restorative practice has become synonymous with relational approaches based on empowerment and democratisation to support the reparation of harm between victim and offender. Similarly, the preventative function of restorative practice to the development of pro-social skills within a learning community has been highlighted alongside the centrality of whole-school approaches to social and emotional learning. In one setting, the whole-school use of restorative practice was enhanced and delivered through vertically structured coaching groups that provided a secure family base and exposure to diversity for pupils throughout their time in school. Coaching groups operated as a plumb-line back to restorative practice, as the site where pro-social skills could be tacitly modelled and rehearsed. Coaching groups provided an opportunity for trusting relationships to develop, impacting on feelings of safety and providing opportunities for disclosure and safeguarding. Subsequently, collective responsibility for behaviour was supported, creating a distributed network of relational accountability and transforming how sanctions were administered, to create a non-hierarchical and relational system of discipline. This relates to transgressive forms of education and a socially orientated pedagogy, emphasising accountability alongside a whole-school ethos of care. Responsibility for behaviour is reframed from a singular to a collective pursuit, where relational responsibility eschews the alienating effect of individual notions of blame. Ultimately, this transformation subverted the classroom’s politics of domination, allowing perceptions of learning and conflict to become entirely reframed.
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 | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.041 | 0.068 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.027 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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".