MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408102979 · doi:10.70116/3065457275

Unveiling the stories that illuminate our path: The pedagogical significance of autobiographical study and the method of currere

2025· article· en· W4408102979 on OpenAlexaff
Patricia Liu Baergen, Daiyairi Muivah

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrere and praxis. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPath (computing)PsychologyPsychoanalysisHistoryLiteratureAestheticsArtComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In today’s educational landscape, instrumentalist ideologies embedded in politically entrenched school curricula often overshadow the richness of diverse human experiences, perpetuating colonial shadows within educational experiences. In this paper, through the sharing of our juxtaposed autobiographical stories, we intend to exhibit the pedagogical significance of autobiographical inquiry and the method of currere as empowering individuals to transcend the limitations of an arrested self – a persona moulded by a factory-like schooling system that merely serves instrumental ends. We seek to address the question: How might the process of autobiographical study and the method of currere impact pedagogical praxis attuning it to individual lived experiences? By examining the specificities of each event in an individual's life and reflecting on the interplay between personal experiences and education, teachers and students can better comprehend their world through the lens of their lived experiences. Therefore, this paper underscores the pedagogical importance of autobiographical study and the method of currere encouraging educators to attune with an educational praxis anchored in personal experiences. Furthermore, it introduces the transformative potential of these methods to reimagine the different possibilities of praxis in 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 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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.414
Threshold uncertainty score0.646

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.377 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrere and praxis.Same topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207