Re-listening to Alexisonfire: Duo-currere, adolescence, and the forms of study therewithin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article shares insights emergent from our practices of listening and re-listening to music that deeply affected us during adolescence. Drawing methodologically on duo-currere, we focus our reflections on our mutual love for, and respective experiences with, the Canadian post-hardcore band Alexisonfire. We evoke the concept of study toward an articulation of the value of such listening both in adolescence and today. More specifically, the following insights emerge from our reflexive practice: 1) our adolescent listening shaped our affective landscapes, forming the contours of our relational and social lives; 2) our adolescent listenings were our first forms of study, and we find similarity in the ways we operate as scholars of curriculum today; and 3) re-visiting those listenings with active attention constitutes a valued form of study, albeit perhaps one that does not fit within the constraining value logics of neoliberal capitalist society. We conclude the article by gesturing toward the affective potency of music heard in our adolescence and its relevance in currere.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".