"Towards a Curriculum of Consciousness: \n"An African and Asian Interface for New Philosophy of Art and Contemporary Cultural Practice, Tested Through Action Research"
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: "4 Minds" is a trans- disciplinary pedagogic action research project taking place at Glasgow School of Art in affiliation with Goldsmiths College University of London. Seven colleagues are testing Ranjana Thapalyal’s thesis which aims to develop self reflective approaches to art and art education, based on a deconstruction and selection of Hindu and Yoruba philosophical theories. Two key problems are identified: firstly the ambivalent position in which Higher Education Art School pedagogy finds itself in the fall out of post modern discourse now deeply embedded in contemporary culture; secondly the attendant difficulty in overt espousal of skill based or socially and ethically aligned work, in favour of more theoretically engaged but potentially self alienating work. \nThe thesis proposes that these problems be tackled via a conscious harnessing of the critical rigour of post structural logic with the flexible and multidisciplinary nature of two of the world’s most ancient thought systems, chosen because of their dynamic concepts of self -knowledge and social context. The danger of a proselytising religious nuancing is pre-empted by highlighting the inferred self questioning nature of the thought systems themselves, and their evident insistence on hermeneutic function and individual human agency, leading to the \nCurriculum of Consciousness. \n \n \nCanada International Conference on Education, Toronto, . \n(CICE 2010)
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 | 0.018 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".