Splitting Rock at Laughing Falls Drawing Creative Consciousness into Social Justice Mediation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this research I look at creative techniques to open new sense-making pathways in the practice of mediation for both practitioners and participants seeking social justice. To challenge the Western European hegemony is to look beyond spoken and written word to achieve relational transformation. My interpretivist methodology is informed in part by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson’s, As We Have Always Done, as she invokes the specific knowledge of Indigenous Peoples. Chela Sandoval’s, Methodology of the Oppressed, charts a path beyond oppression to differential consciousness through semiotics connecting to my exploration of the creative. Bell & Desai’s Imagining Otherwise: Connecting the Arts \n& Social Justice to Envision and Act for Change, demonstrates the efficacy of creative techniques in achieving both awareness and action on social justice. Ken Cloke’s Mediating Dangerously invites a close examination of techniques to engage with \nthe most challenging and conflicted situations. Interviews with eight mediation and social justice advocates reveal the effective integration of creative methods. Throughout the text, I insert sketches and poems as part of my own reflective and creative praxis - part memoir and part critique.
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 | 0.008 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.066 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.019 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
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".