Dreaming a better future: irreverent beings who say what we cannot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper/visual art/puppet show is about the more-than-human entities who help me include my whole self in my teaching and other research. It is about how generative it is to be our whole, sacred, profane, glorious selves. This art reminds us of the importance of dreaming beyond what we have been told is possible. It demonstrates how irreverent, gleeful, binary-challenging art makes oppression more visible, so that we can challenge it. This work is about interrupting hegemony/the status quo/the idea that some of us are ‘normal’ and the rest should be pecked to death. It is about resistance strategies for poking fun at power, especially our own (so we don’t become someone who attacks difference). The puppet collaboration aspect came from shared frustration with the Non-Profit Industrial Complex. This collaboration is part of our ongoing, decades-long experimentation. This paper includes art that I shared as a participant in dichotomy-challenging research, which uplifted the voices of Mad social workers. This art makes fun of my profession of social work. I was encouraged to have space to express my feelings, without being constrained by mere words. I invite you to share the dream of being our whole selves, beyond and within the confines of universities, professions, classrooms, societies and research. By continuing to play in unsafe circumstances, I am keeping myself, connection, dreaming beyond binary, and art as resistance. What are you fighting for? How are you making fun of yourself?
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.018 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.004 |
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".