Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article seeks to bring Australian-settler scholar Simone Bignall’s writing on ex-colonialism (exit-from-colonialism) into conversation with the field of curriculum studies. Specifically, ex-colonialism is discussed in relation to theories of social change in education and other frameworks for thinking about Indigenous and non-Indigenous curricular relations. Ex-colonialism posits a resolute exit from colonialism that doesn’t seek the recognition of the state and demands a complete overhaul of settler-colonial social structures. Coming from an intercultural position that includes a Eurocentric critique of Eurocentrism and mirroring an Indigenous politics of refusal from a settler-theorized position, ex-colonialism offers settlers some agency in enacting radical anti-colonial change. Structurally, the paper unfolds as follows. First, I present ex-colonialism in brief as an intercultural framework for working toward collaborative, anti-colonial change. I then characterize four other, more popular terms in curriculum studies that can be considered representative of larger Indigenous projects of social change: reconciliation, decolonization, Indigenization, and resurgence. Next, I compare each term to the project of social change proposed through ex-colonialism. I then highlight the history of BIPOC replacement in curriculum studies and public education, linking it to the consumptive nature of neoliberal capitalism. In response, I draw on ex-colonialism’s careful attention to the ethics of relation in order, ultimately, to suggest the micropolitical possibility of an otherwise to what has existed and what exists now in public schooling and curriculum.
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 | 0.048 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.047 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.026 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".