Assemblages of Desire in Children's Roadmaking Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The pedagogical approach activated in this study is centred around the concept of the "assemblage of desire" put forth by Deleuze and Guattari (1987). This approach views education as a transformative practice that stages a pedagogical act, shifting the focus from transmitting information to embracing encounters, relationships, innovation, and difference. The roadmaking curriculum event manifests this approach, where a group of children, educators, and a researcher work together towards a shared goal through the force of desire and experimentation. The main protagonists in this event are a small group of 3 to 5-year-old children (Jason, Ella, Jessica, Scott, Brian, Chris, and James) and their educator, Pritti. This study highlights the collaborative nature of a curriculum inquiry, where all participants become co-inquirers, immersed in the experiment, and constantly exploring new problems and connections. Furthermore, this approach recognizes the importance of educators' ethical and political responsibility in viewing education as a transformative practice.
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 | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".