Fostering an inclusive multispecies social pedagogy: rethinking ethical human–animal relations in art
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their chapter ‘Critical Animal Pedagogies’, scholars Karen Dinker and Helen Pedersen argue that a learning society is based on a continual process of self-improvement through work and education. However, this process depends on the concept of a binary division among beings, such as humans and animals, that operates on the principles of inclusion and exclusion, which must be reassessed. The discipline of art pedagogy embodies these binary principles by perpetuating a closed system of knowledge that is anthropocentric in nature. Animals are traditionally diminished to the status of metaphors or symbols rather than being perceived as active participants in human society. This impacts our comprehension of human–animal relationships that influence socio-emotional well-being. Art has the unique ability to capture a representation of human–animal relations and re-imagining the way that animals are understood can offer new insights into multispecies partnerships and the development of social-emotional skills. This article ethically rethinks the representation of human–animal relations in art by integrating insights from social pedagogy and ethics of care theory to challenge speciesist notions of social inclusion/exclusion in traditional art education. It also employs resonance theory as a theoretical framework to think with non-human animal subjects. This approach transforms animals into active social participants and collaborators whereby art serves as a catalyst for reflexive thinking about social inequalities and injustices. Embracing multispecies transhistorical relationships can deepen our comprehension of the social benefits of human–animal relations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".