Resonating with physics: physics students’ stories about existential and affective relations to science in and beyond formal learning spaces
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this paper, we seek to contribute to understandings about how physics allows reflection on what it means to be human. Drawing on life-history interviews with three university physics students, we explore the affective and existential aspects of engagement in physics, with attention to experiences from informal and formal science spaces. With Hartmut Rosa’s conceptualization of resonance, we show how (intertwined and parallel) relations to physics – as a superstructure, science materials, and people via science – can provide meaningful connections to the world and oneself. The students, all of whom had undertaken adult education, had enrolled in university physics for reasons of awe, joy, and, also, serenity in hardship. Though reiterating common understandings of physics as an ‘objective’ and ‘challenging’ subject, the interviewees described their engagement in physics as salutogenic. Physics provided existential meaning and well-being; e.g. its epistemic character of boundaries and beauty offered stability in precarious life situations. Our study shows how science can be important for (i) reshaping one’s worldview and self-understanding, (ii) fostering meaningful relationships, and (iii) enhancing well-being. We conclude that to cultivate engagement in science, education should prioritize creating meaningful, respectful learning spaces that support students in forming a diverse range of resonant science-related relationships.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it