MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414139153 · doi:10.1080/14703297.2025.2557500

Contributions of speculative media to the sustainable development goals: A preliminary framework based on critical pedagogy

2025· article· en· W4414139153 on OpenAlexafffund
John C. Hayvon

Bibliographic record

VenueInnovations in Education and Teaching International · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLiteracy, Media, and Education
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSustainable developmentSustainabilityEducation for sustainable developmentTeaching methodHigher educationCritical theoryCritical thinkingCritical pedagogy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inequalities emerging in socioeconomic status, health, race, and gender have been shown to have strong intersections with environmental issues as noted by the Sustainable Development Goals. In advancing pedagogy to resist persistent, intersectional inequalities, speculative media – crossing the range of curricular films, serious games, animations, drama, and graphic novels – have been documented in existing scholarship as potential pedagogical tools. This paper mobilises George Miller’s speculative narrative and Freirean pedagogy to consider specific mechanisms through which speculative media may support future social action against inequalities. Beyond lending critical lens to future and present invisibilized risks, speculative media may help challenge students’ assumptions regarding 1) Freire’s conceptualisation of profit-generation via class-consciousness and solidarity; 2) rehumanising and resisting commodification of marginalised groups; 3) immediate feasibility of solutions and inadvertent deprioritization of critical macro-level interventions; and lastly, 4) the re-evaluation of social norms which foster institutionalised inequalities.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.369
Teacher spread0.352 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInnovations in Education and Teaching InternationalSame topicLiteracy, Media, and EducationFrench-language works237,207