Mystery—Whereof We Cannot Know, Yet Cannot Keep Silent
Bibliographic record
Abstract
After the long labour of bringing a journal issue from idea to reality, an editorial gives the editors an opportunity to stand at the threshold and invite readers in. In this special issue, here’s what you will find: eight curriculum scholars, including the editors, wondering about “Mystery, World and Education”, as they ask themselves: What is mystery? How have I experienced it? What ways of knowing, teaching and/or learning does mystery suggest? This issue asserts no joint position. Rather, it tells eight unique stories, emerging from what the scholars are concerned about as educators, how and what they have learned from opening to mystery, and how this relates to their aspirations for curriculum. However, out of the diversity, commonalities emerge that speak to the nature of mystery. The scholars begin their inquiries wondering about mystery in terms of knowledge, qua the unknown and unknowable. Thinking about the unknowable is related to experiences of indeterminacy and enigma—mystery is found both in liminal spaces and as liminal. Significantly, the scholars experience mystery in and through their relations with more-thans—other persons, more-than-humans (animals, animate beings, agented things), Spirit Beings, Being itself and the Divine. Mystery develops from an epistemological to an existential concern. Theorizing mystery entails explicating one’s ontological (or metaphysical) beliefs. Come, tarry, experience what it is to dwell on, with and in mystery.
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 | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.007 |
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".