MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402461733 · doi:10.1080/14681366.2024.2398420

Walking-wit(h)nessing: propositions for walking with waste landscapes in early childhood education

2024· article· en· W4402461733 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePedagogy Culture and Society · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicDiverse academic research themes
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPedagogySociologyEnvironmental educationEarly childhood educationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper takes walking-based research in early childhood education as a propositional space, one grounded in reconsidering witnessing as a practice attuned to co-emergence in waste landscapes. I draw from Ettinger’s (2001) and Boscacci’s (2018) word-concept wit(h)nessing to stake out some possibilities for walking-wit(h)nessing as an affective, relational practice for pedagogical responses to child-waste subjectivities in the ongoing global waste crisis. In doing so, I am careful to frame walking alongside waste landscapes as an invitational move towards resisting passive observation, one that refuses to extricate children, educators, and researchers from living-and-becoming with waste. I conclude by offering three propositions for walking-wit(h)nessing waste landscapes that open towards walking practices that embrace the tensions of waste and human/more-than-human enmeshment for enacting pedagogies that confront and counter status quo waste logics of invisibility, the problematics of scale, and solvability.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.396
Threshold uncertainty score0.677

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.401
Teacher spread0.359 · 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