Edging towards understanding: Illuminating student experiences of liminality in introductory sociology
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book had its beginnings on the edge of the North Atlantic Ocean, when international scholars from all over the globe met in Halifax, Nova Scotia at the 6th International Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference held over the three days of 15-17 June 2016."-- Preface. \n\nInternational Biennial Threshold Concepts Conference (6th : 2016 : Dalhousie University)\n\nSince the first literature about the Threshold Concepts Framework was published in 2003, a considerable body of educational research into this topic has grown internationally across a wide range of disciplines and professional fields. Successful negotiation of a threshold concept can be seen as crossing boundaries into new conceptual space, or as a portal opening up new and previously inaccessible ways of thinking about something. In this unfamiliar conceptual terrain, fresh insights and perceptions come into view, and access is gained to new discourses. This frequently entails encounters with 'troublesome knowledge', knowledge which provokes a liminal phase of transition in which new understandings must be integrated and, importantly, prior conceptions relinquished. There is often double trouble, in that letting go of a prevailing familiar view frequently involves a discomfiting change in the subjectivity of the learner. We become what we know. It is a space in which the learner might become 'stuck'. Threshold Concepts on the Edge, the fifth volume in a series on this subject, discusses the new directions of this research. Its six sections address issues that arise in relation to theoretical development, liminal space, ontological transformations, curriculum, interdisciplinarity and aspects of writing across learning thresholds"-- Provided by publisher.
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 | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.034 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".