Viable vulnerabilities: Rethinking conference pedagogies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2025 we all live with a heightened sense of vulnerability. Daily, the rights of children and families are breeched in unconscionable ways. It is ever more urgent to sustain a sense of hopefulness and to imagine the world otherwise. All hope involves risk, and risk entails vulnerability to failure. Commonly understood as signaling potential physical or psychological harm, in some contexts vulnerability may be a source of strength and connectivity, a personal and social good. Our goal is to prompt conversations about the practical and emotional benefits of living vulnerably. We argue that for students and teachers alike, a posture of vulnerability can help us to remain open to who and what shows up in educative contexts. Initially a performance at the 2024 Reconceptualizing Early Childhood Education Conference challenging traditional “stand and deliver” modes of conference pedagogy, Viable Vulnerabilities employs an alternative format including “call and response” storytelling, music, and images. Our conference performance, worked through affect rather than reason, prompting the sympathetic imagination rather than the absorption of predigested conclusions. We hope this text will function similarly for readers of Contemporary Issues in Early Childhood 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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".