English Language Arts as an Emancipatory Subject
Bibliographic record
Abstract
English Language Arts as an Emancipatory Subject explores the changing nature and history of the English Language as an emancipatory subject, as well as how its current activities and projects address and challenge inequalities.Various forms of critical literacy have established English teaching as a radical force for social justice and subversion. However, the expert contributors to this book question whether English is a force for good in its capacity to develop literate citizens, or, are there larger contemporary complications surrounding it? This book will re-examine the history of English, its present quality as a classroom subject and its future potential to re-establish itself as an agent of social equality and change. Edited by internationally leading scholars from the UK, USA and Australia with contributions from New Zealand and Canada, this work will also inspire English teachers to view their subject as one through which positive differences are imagined, and complex real-life issues are debated and challenged in the classroom. The volume is an excellent overview of research and the latest thinking about the nature of English as an emancipatory subject, its distinguished history and its potential for the future. It will be a key resource for the research and teacher-education community, English teachers, student teachers, and anyone who views English teaching as a catalyst of social change.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".