MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414254047 · doi:10.1177/00345237251375238

Political education in the climate crisis: Elaboration and reinvigoration of the agonistic model

2025· article· en· W4414254047 on OpenAlex
Claudia W. Ruitenberg

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch in Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Education and Multiculturalism
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAgonistic behaviourCONTESTAgonismPoliticsDemocracyAdversaryElaborationCompromise

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The paper argues that the climate crisis is a political issue, not merely a scientific issue, and that agonistic democratic theory (Mouffe) remains helpful to underpin political education. It offers three elaborations that support this argument. The first is on how the category of the “enemy” in Mouffe’s work does or does not play a role in political education. The second addresses the misinterpretation of agonistic political theory as requiring the active fostering of conflict. The third elaboration is on how antagonism can be transformed into agonism. On this point, the paper argues that agonistic political education involves the uncoercive rearrangement of the desire (Spivak) to eradicate an enemy into the desire to contest a political adversary in democratic struggle. It concludes by discussing the climate crisis as a frontier of struggle that ought to play a prominent role in political education today, and that illustrates the viability of agonistic democratic 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.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.776
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.521
Teacher spread0.449 · 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