Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article explores what we identify as two forms of intuition. The first is a form called teacher-intuition, which is described as expertise-based, rational, and individualised. The second form, relational-intuition, is inspired by Intuitive Interspecies Communication and presented as an embodied, reflexive, and connected way of being with/in the more-than-human world. Guided by hermeneutic methodology, anecdotes and research vignettes aid in understanding the ontological and epistemological differences of these two intuitions. We consider how teacher-intuition might unduly limit the possibilities available for ecologically minded pedagogies, especially in comparison to relational-intuition, which opens more ontologically diverse ways to be teacher — thereby expanding one’s options for interacting with students and creating space for ecological connection. Wild Pedagogies (Jickling et al., 2018) is drawn upon to help situate relational-intuition. We conclude with questions that educators may consider with regards to the form and range of their own intuitions, with a view to perhaps bringing forward more relational forms.
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 | 0.013 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".