Relaxed pedagogy: teaching and learning beyond diversity agendas
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, known in Anishinaabe as Turtle Island, diversity and inclusion initiatives in higher education increasingly recognize power relations surrounding disability/access as a core component of diversity agendas and the policies and pedagogies that seek to enact them. Drawing on a 240-participant Relaxed Performance (RP) research project delivered over eight months across three universities in Southern Ontario, we describe a new empirically- and collectively-generated approach to access-informed (post) critical pedagogy called Relaxed Pedagogy, or RelaxPed. Relaxed Pedagogy “relaxes” classrooms and benefits students and educators through taking a post-critical pedagogical approach that is context-specific, connected to lived experience, interested in reflexive community-building, and non-prescriptive in ways that orient toward affirming difference and advancing “crip horizons” of access rather than diversity agendas. This article considers the implications of creative, invitational RelaxPed within diversity agendas in arts education and beyond.
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 | 0.016 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.053 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".