MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416220464 · doi:10.1080/02601370.2025.2589172

“Who gave you permission to have this idea?”: collective creation and emancipatory pedagogy under unfree labour

2025· article· en· W4416220464 on OpenAlexafffundabout
John Perry

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Lifelong Education · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGlobal Educational Policies and Reforms
Canadian institutionsSt. Francis Xavier University
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPermissionAdult educationWork (physics)Higher educationCritical theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article reflects on the pedagogical tensions that emerged through a collective play creation process with migrant farm workers employed under Canada’s Seasonal Agricultural Worker Program (SAWP). Drawing on Jacques Rancière’s conception of emancipation, the article considers how participants engaged in a theatre-based project that explored their lived experiences of unfree labour. While the process opened space for collective self-expression and aesthetic rupture, it also exposed the ambivalence and risk entangled with acts of visibility within systems of surveillance and control. Through an analysis of post-performance dialogue, the article contends that critical pedagogy under constraint must reckon with refusal and partial subjectification as politically meaningful. Emancipatory education, in this view, may emerge not through the orchestration of overt resistance, but through the negotiation of fragile and embodied expressions that unsettle dominant scripts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0200.052
Scholarly communication0.0090.007
Open science0.0010.011
Research integrity0.0020.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Lifelong EducationSame topicGlobal Educational Policies and ReformsFrench-language works237,207