MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400864912 · doi:10.4018/ijaet.347377

Towards a More Critical Cognizant Learning Model

2024· article· en· W4400864912 on OpenAlexaff
Hussein Chaitani

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Adult Education and Technology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicCritical and Liberation Pedagogy
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgarySAIT Polytechnic
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical pedagogyCritical theorySociologyAgency (philosophy)Construct (python library)HegemonyEpistemologyMeaning (existential)Neoliberalism (international relations)HumanityCritical literacyCritical discourse analysisPedagogyStructure and agencySocial sciencePolitical scienceLawPoliticsLiteracyPhilosophyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It could be argued that the current adult education paradigm aligns with a liberal knowledge economy. A more critical perspective is Paulo Freire's banking education concept that removes criticality from a learner's repertoire and facilitates alignment with the prevalent liberal education and its hegemonic objectives. Drawing from Paulo Freire's (1990) Pedagogy of the Oppressed, Flores (2017) suggested that banking education teaches the oppressed to accept the oppressor's social framework. In this paper, and through the analysis of news media articles and policy documents, the author examines the phenomenon of terrorism and how a Western worldview constructs and engages in meaning-making for the reader. As a result, the author proposes a more critical cognizant adult learning model. Drawing from Habermasian theory, the need to cultivate humanity, and criticality as practiced by Critical Discourse Analysis, the author proposes a learning model construct of evolving criticality, emancipatory in intent, complex in its components and their relationships, with the intent of giving back agency to citizens.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.764
Threshold uncertainty score0.210

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.016
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.403 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Adult Education and TechnologySame topicCritical and Liberation PedagogyFrench-language works237,207