Bibliographic record
Abstract
In assessing leverage points to promote educational equality, this paper examines Freire's concept of education as oppression to highlight the potential of reclaiming resources currently dedicated to oppressive education. Harel Ben-Shahar's concepts of education as a positional good as well as the potential lack of instrumental value in contributing to students' social, health, relational, and other holistic aspects of wellbeing are mobilized to disentangle varying forms of education. Practitioner experience with students living with disabilities in a postcolonial global south establishes the foundational context to consider how education has capacity to challenge the following: economic domination; restraint on traditional Indigenous knowledge; limited basic livelihood; and media stereotypes on effort committed by the marginalized-yet often chooses not to. Disentangling what precisely constitutes education as oppression emerges as a challenging task, since Freire's conceptualization of conformity is often required of students if they wish to meet essential survival needs. Lisu case studies in rural agricultural economies, traditional ecological knowledge, and postcolonial curriculum demonstrate that education as oppression can emerge naturally with or without intent, and that education mobilized to gatekeep social resources or justify the inequitable distribution of life opportunities can reinforce existing systematic inequalities. Notably, resources and opportunities in disadvantaged communities can already be stratified by preexisting racist; sexist; ableist; classist; or colonial discrimination, and suggest that the intersection between education and basic survival of students should not be viewed as too tangential or basic for future policy discourse. Four forms of education as oppression are preliminarily considered, toward supporting future discourse on eliminating inadvertent oppressive impacts via funded pedagogy.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.060 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.025 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".