MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411917507 · doi:10.25071/1916-4467.40845

Sojourn of the Sylvan Fringe: Receptivity to Mystery and Curricular Ruminations

2025· article· en· W4411917507 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Douglas D. Karrow, Sharon Harvey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum Studies · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicAmerican Sports and Literature
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReceptivityPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This retrospective of an extended inquiry into the phenomenon of mystery addresses three questions: What is mystery?, revealing through hermeneutic phenomenology an unknown flower within a forest resuscitating metaphysics as physis, a definition of mystery founded on secrecy and incomprehensibility, and a conception of mystery as the enigma of the counterplay between the ontological movements of presencing and absencing (Caputo, 1986; Heidegger, 1927/1962); Why distain toward mystery?, where, through a literature review, a typology of senses of mystery problematizes this distain and expands awareness towards mystery. Openness to mystery begins through awareness, which heightens the senses and emotions, kindling poetic knowledge, a foundational mode of being. Mystery also serves as a measure for our lives, through our consonant comportments and conceptions. The comportment of humility, among others, is highlighted as nurturing mystery; and How may receptivity toward mystery inform curriculum theory?, where the consideration of “what should be learned” (Petrina, 2004), supports a conception of education in which future generations recognize metaphysics as presence, while awakening to metaphysics as physis.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0100.027
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0010.007
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.240 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association for Curriculum StudiesSame topicAmerican Sports and LiteratureFrench-language works237,207