“Critical Space”: An emerging community to engage in critical thinking and de/anti-colonial praxis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We are six engineers and engineering researchers from four institutions across Turtle Island , in Canada. We all share similar values and perspectives regarding the colonial, patriarchal, and capitalist (exploitative) nature of traditional engineering education and practices. Upon coming together, we noted shared feelings of isolation in our respective institutions. We felt stifled by the dominant ‘culture of disengagement’ that perpetuates depoliticization, the myth of meritocracy, and the socio/technical dualism in engineering. Consequently, we decided to create a book club (learning community) to engage with critical and decolonial literature in a collaborative manner. More specifically, we intended to form critical perspectives of engineering through non-dominant paradigms. In this paper, we reflect on our engagement in a critical literature book club as a space for learning and community support in engineering education.
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 | 0.032 | 0.036 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.074 | 0.086 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.035 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".