Telling a Different Story: Self-Determination, Consent and Sacred Respect as Foundations of Education for the World to Come
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract As usually conceived and practiced, education – sustainability, environmental and beyond – is embedded in an overarching narrative of progress: increasing human knowledge leading us to make wiser decisions about our behaviour, as individuals and societies. This article outlines an alternative story that draws on the work of two Indigenous scholars, E. Richard Atleo (Nuu-chah-nulth) and Leanne Simpson (Nishnaabeg), who approach living well as a quest to co-exist in harmony and balance with all our relations (that is, the living world of which we are an integral part). Among the core principles they identify are self-determination, consent and sacred respect, understood both as operative in the functioning of healthy ecosystems and as guides to human development and relationships. We show how these principles are grounded in a quest for the mutual beneficial flourishing of free beings and trace some of their implications for environmental education. While stories of this kind are at odds with the current dominant conception of schooling, there are many ways in which they could begin to influence how we move beyond the metacrisis and further, how wethink about and practice education for eco-social –cultural change and the future world/s to come .
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 | 0.016 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.105 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".