Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This chapter introduces readers to the theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical work calling for a critical re-examination of the main assumptions underlying GCE. It emphasizes how the history of ideas and interventions related to progress and development are connected to the creation of contemporary inequalities and ideals of student agency in schools. We argue that without a critically reflexive grounding, GCE approaches can reproduce assumptions that reinforce rather than challenge mechanisms of inequality. We situate critical GCE within the wider literature and specifically within postcolonial critiques. We present Andreotti’s (2006) framework of soft/critical GCE as an example of a key pedagogical and reflexive tool. Next, we present examples of research and practice in Ireland and Canada to exemplify and highlight both the challenges and opportunities for this work. Finally, we present the Through Others Eyes methodology as a pedagogical example of critical GCE. We argue for an approach to GCE based on disarmament, humility, and historical consciousness where students learn to unlearn, to listen, to learn with others, and to reach out ready to work in solidarity with others in the co-construction of alternative futures.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".