MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7096803961

CANADIAN JOURNAL OF COMMUNICAT ION, 1985, 2 ( I) , 107-122. ANDRAGOGY AND TEACHING CRITICAL COMMUNICATION

2016· article· en· W7096803961 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicMedia, Communication, and Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAndragogyProcess (computing)Critical thinkingCurriculumCritical consciousnessRaising (metalworking)Kinesics
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The thesis of this article is as follows. If the content of a teaching is belied by the process by which it is taught, the instructee will take the process as the truer indicator of reality-- just as one goes by nonver6aTsi?i a crossed communication when the verbal content is belied by the kinesics and paralinguistics of the delivery process. Thus the development of a discourse that facilitates critical con-sciousness raising on the topic of communication is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for producing critical consciousness in those taught, if the teaching method is pedagogy. For pedagogy is a process which soXa7Ees into u i i X s acceptance of a hidden curriculum involving becoming a passive consumer of transmitted information (McQueen, 1984, 1-2; 7-12). A pedagogical teaching process belies the "critical " communication content taught. Passive, other-directed stu-dents do not automatically turn into active, inner-directed citizens by exchanging their status as directed subordinates in an academic bureau-cracy for a similar status in a business, industrial or governmental one. Moreover, as education is a prime instrument of socialization, it becomes institutionalized into, and thus comes to embody, the dominant values of its host culture and society. Mere provision of a critical discourse cannot liberate large nunbers within the resulting system if the delivery methods of the system have to be used to convey the critical discourse. A critical discourse needs its own delivery system (which itself requires a well-articulated philosophy and methodology 1, and must itself be institutionalized with powerful interests to back it. The latter conditions are beginning to be met, in some sectors of society and academe, for andragogy. These developments do not, how-ever, necessarily mean that departments of communication studies, as they are presently constituted, wi 11 provide an institutional context within which an andragogical instructional process will be fostered

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.713

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.006
Science and technology studies0.0080.005
Scholarly communication0.0080.004
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1010.018

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.

Opus teacher head0.034
GPT teacher head0.364
Teacher spread0.331 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMedia, Communication, and EducationFrench-language works237,207