MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405762906 · doi:10.21810/sfuer.v16i1.6689

A Thematic Literature Review of Decolonization and Abolitionist Approaches in Computing Education

2024· article· en· W4405762906 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueSFU Educational Review · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender and Technology in Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCritical pedagogyCritical thinkingSociologyDiversity (politics)PedagogyEngineering ethicsDecolonizationThematic analysisCritical theoryPower (physics)EpistemologyPolitical scienceSocial scienceQualitative researchPoliticsEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This scoping review explores the role of critical and culturally responsive pedagogy in addressing the significant gap in computer science (CS) education. Despite ongoing efforts to increase diversity, many groups, including women, remain underrepresented in CS. The research draws on Paulo Freire's foundational ideas on critical pedagogy, advocating for a dynamic and ethical approach to teaching that fosters critical thinking and community involvement. The review also examines various interventions in literature which incorporate critical, decolonial, and abolitionist pedagogies in CS education. Addressing both the technical and social dimensions of computing, educators can equip students with the tools needed to challenge and transform existing power structures, contributing to a more just and equitable society.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.580
Threshold uncertainty score0.308

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it