Making & Belonging: The Philosophy and Poetics of Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study consists of hosting conversations at the Hermit Lab, an emerging research centre for socially engaged imagination, as well as participating in conversations of everyday community life in a rural Ontario village. The study is grounded in the values and practices of participatory research, ecological learning, and relational epistemologies. The study was conducted in the context of living in the present turbulent world, characterized by rapid socio-ecological change and high uncertainty. The goal of the study was to explore participatory encounter: what happens when people experience themselves as co-participants in the world? The assumption behind this inquiry being that part of today’s challenge is to tell the stories of our lives so that we can understand what is happening around us and begin to organize ways forward. Through the conversations that arose out of this study, the experience of participatory encounter was documented through four overlapping themes: conversation, mutual aid, affection for place, and the poetics of space. Each of these themes, written from my perspective and those of Hermit Lab participants, explores the phenomena of participatory encounter through the experience of people making and belonging.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".