Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the past two decades, pedagogical documentation has undergone a series of conceptual and interpretative transformations, shifting from a practice intimately tied to the pedagogical project of Reggio Emilia into a globally circulating and increasingly institutionalized practice that traverses policy frameworks, professional discourses, and academic research across diverse educational and cultural contexts.Paradoxically however, its acceptance works against the richness of its thinking.This paradox has allowed and facilitated documentation's implication in neoliberal logics of accountability, standardization, and developmental matrices, raising further concerns about the ways in which its critical and generative potentials may be foreclosed.The story of documentation cannot be told solely through its institutionalization or its instrumentalization, and less so through its ideological deracination and depoliticization.Alongside these developments, and in their many tensions and contradictions, inventive theorizations nonetheless continue to emerge.These invite us to think of documentation, not as mere representation, but as a living force generative of new pedagogical possibilities.They situate documentation within questions of politics, ethics, and ontology, pushing it to contest the descriptive and evaluative and toward the propositional and projective.
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 | 0.003 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.171 | 0.096 |
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".