Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many of the problems in the Anthropocene age we now live in – such as the climate crisis – seem rather depressing and unsolvable, due to prevailing political regimes and human folly (e.g. Scranton, 2015). It is, therefore, only natural that this situation gives rise to a plethora of hopelessness, anxiety, passivity, frustrations, as well as burn out and ignorance strategies among young people (Paulsen et. al. 2022). As argued by Marek Oziewicz (2022), contemporary youth predominantly (through media etc.) encounter dystopic narratives regarding the future of the planet and their own lives. In this paper three different types of future narratives and expectations are discussed: a) a dystopic vision where 'everything will collapse,' b) a technofix perspective wherein 'technical solutions will be developed to solve or at least mitigate the worst problems related to climate and ecological crisis,' and c) an outlook where 'we will develop new ways of living, more life-friendly, in partnership with the living world’. In line with Oziewicz (Ibid.) it is proposed that the third type is what we need most, but that it is only marginally cultivated and creatively engaged with by young people today (Nørreklit and Paulsen, 2023). On this background and based on posthuman educational research approaches (Rousell & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, 2022) the author of this paper have developed a solarpunk speculative cli-fi-roleplaying game, together with Sara Mosberg Iversen, which have been proto-tested with 12 young students, during four days in January 2024, as a potential educational tool to facilitate non-dystopic and life-friendly future imaginations, but also deep reflections on hope and the role of one’s expectations on one’s present engagement in the world. The paper discusses the results of the first testing of the game, in relation to the forementioned 3 types of narratives. By this the paper tries to add important aspects to present discussions about what role education can play in facilitating a transformation to a life-friendly future society. How can education support young people’s future?<br/>References:<br/><br/>Scranton, R. (2015). Learning to die in the Anthropocene: Reflections on the end of a civilization. City Lights Publishers. Nørreklit, L., & Paulsen, M. (2023). Life-friendly: who we are and who we want to be. Journal of Pragmatic Constructism, 13(1), 9-22 Oziewicz, M. (2022). Planetarianism now: On Anticipatory imagination, young people’s literature, and hope for the planet. In M. Paulsen et al. (Eds.) Pedagogy in the Anthropocene: Rewilding education for a new earth. Palgrave. Paulsen, M., jagodzinski, J., & Hawke, S. (2022). A Critical Introduction. In M. Paulsen, J. jagodzinski, & S. Hawke (red.), Pedagogy in the Anthropocene: Re-Wilding Education for a New Earth. Palgrave Macmillan. Rousell, D., & Cutter-Mackenzie-Knowles, A. (2022). Posthuman research playspaces: Climate child imaginaries. Taylor & Francis.<br/>
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".