Quiet spaces, collective voices: creative pedagogies for reflection and renewal
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Educational institutions, and institutions more broadly, often overlook the value of our collective narratives and the stories of those who shaped them. This session offered an active yet meditative space for attendees to engage in and reflect on creative and liberatory practices that have been shared across our community, and in doing so to implicitly honour some of the individuals and collectives who have made contributions to education, society and our community, whether big or small. The LD community has created a pedagogy of practice that can get lost in the ‘chatter’ and clutter of everyday working lives. We revisited some practices that have been surfaced, shared and celebrated by ALDinHE. Framed as five focused activities that LDs can draw upon for their own teaching practice, this workshop session aimed to provide a meaningful space for reflection and remembrance. By sharing techniques for noticing, poetry, drawing, collaborative writing, and concluding with a short, guided meditation, we offered a space for replenishment and hope.
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 | 0.028 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
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".