Hidden Curriculum: The Radical Youth Punk Pedagogy of Propagandhi, A Case Study 1992-2017
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scholarly study of punk is a growing interdisciplinary field. Within that already specialized group, research into punk pedagogy is emerging as a vital component of punk scholarship. However, no study in punk pedagogy has narrowed its scope to any one influential punk band to determine what constitutes its punk pedagogy. This dissertation weaves diverse disciplines together to elucidate the hidden curriculum of the progressive Canadian punk band, Propagandhi.An understanding of Propagandhi’s punk pedagogy is formulated through textual analysis of the band’s lyrics, a sonic investigation of their music, interviews with the band, and surveys of Propagandhi fans, all informed and supported by an auto-ethnographic fan and learner experience of the researcher. As self-proclaimed “failures in school,” it is incredible that Propagandhi succeed in doing what so many schools wish to do: create critically engaged students embarking on a journey of becoming global citizens. Resolving how this could be the case brings many fields of study to task. What is the hidden curriculum woven into Propagandhi’s body of work that has effectively changed so many lives across the globe? Are they simply embodying a critical pedagogy, or have they crafted an approach unique to their brand of punk rock? Furthermore, this dissertation legitimizes the hidden curriculum found within informal educational settings. Propagandhi, ultimately, are able to strike a balance between reasonable critical thought and inquiry as outlined by Neil Postman’s theories on education, while Propagandhi also focus on changing social issues that are relevant and crucial to a free society. Propagandhi show that pain and hope can both be utilized as fuel for creative production.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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".