Pilipinx Radical Imagination: Healing and Visioning in our Process of Becoming
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There are estimated 10.4 million Filipinos living or working abroad primarily in the Middle East, Europe, Canada, and the United States searching for a better life for themselves and their families (Commission on Filipino Overseas, 2013). Due to economic motivation, assimilating to the host country's culture, values, and traditions is an act of survival. While the majority of the research has focused on the domestic workers’ experience, rarely has there been a study focusing on Filipinos in the diaspora positive contributions to the host country and their Pilipinx Radical Imagination. As a result, the purpose of this qualitative study is to explore diasporic Filipinos’ current lived experiences and visioning for their communities. This study focuses on eight self identified Filipino/a/x/@, Pilipino/a/x/@ or Pin@y contributors from The Pilipinx Radical Imagination Reader (Nievera-Lozano & Santa Ana, 2018). This study utilizes Transcendent Resistance, a newly introduced framework, and FilCrit pedagogy and to examine their lived experiences and interview them with a culturally humble data collection methodology, kuwentuhan, sharing stories, (Jocson, 2008). Analysis of the data demonstrated three themes: (1) identity is culturally fluid; (2) transcendent love is at the heart of their love for themselves and their communities; (3) and healing and visioning. Further research is needed to document the positive contributions of Filipinos in the diaspora, complexities and multiplicities of Filipinos in the diaspora, community kuwentuhans as space for healing and visioning, and further development of the Pilipinx Radical Imagination.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".