The Transeunt Listener: Towards Futurities of Re-learning in Truth and Reconciliation Curriculum and Teacher Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
What does it mean to read, write and act towards reconciliation in curriculum and teacher education? To answer this question, I perform a situated literature review of Truth and Reconciliation teacher education research. I borrow from Lisa Farley’s (2010) concept of the reluctant pilgrim. While Farley reflects on a physical journey to understand how belief can withstand historical loss and immersion in ongoing systems of colonial power, I engage with her concept psychically; I attend to the words and listen for the implied hopes of the authors I read. Also attentive to my own beliefs and hopes as I read them, I become what I term a transeunt listener. I discuss how I became a transeunt listener through a form of reading-as-encounter and how it enabled me to understand how teacher education might address what I see as three tensions in truth and reconciliation teacher education discourse: 1) belonging; 2) disruption of settler consciousness; and 3) an expanded ethical capacity in teachers and curriculum theorists.
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 | 0.031 | 0.046 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.033 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| 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".