Reflections on "Voices from the Heart" Workshop
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work of education innovation is stressful, challenging, and at times isolating. Through the delivery of a workshop we developed, we create an intimate and brave space to explore our own well-being and thriving using the practices of intention setting, embodiment, and wisdom circles, and facilitate a basic understanding of the neurobiology behind stress, trauma, and learning. In this practice paper, we review the process and literature used to develop the workshop. We share lessons learned from delivering the workshop. These are highlighted to demonstrate the empirical value that this workshop, as a practice, brings to the engineering education community. Based on initial offerings of the workshop, the authors have observed that participants have found the workshop to be a beneficial process that enables them to connect more deeply to themselves and to others within the engineering education community.
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 | 0.034 | 0.075 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.020 | 0.014 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.018 | 0.035 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.006 |
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".