Working Lives & Adult Education Framework for a Critical Pedagogy of Work
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract: The case is made for a politically and culturally engaged critical pedagogy of work, placing it within the historical legacy of adult education. Prompted by the Work and Learning Network initiative at the University of Alberta, this paper marks a renewal of the author’s interest in the discourse on education and the world of work. The critical commentaries on education and work in Critical Crosscurrents in Education (Collins, 1998) have been pretty much confirmed, if only because the trends noted were apparent enough at the time and have since become increasingly clear-cut: This despite dense neo-liberal rhetoric on globalization, as state-endorsed corporate ideology successfully permeates our educational institutions. At this juncture, and with a fair understanding of what it is up against, a fledgling critical pedagogy of work has its own work cut out in making a case for moving critique from progressive liberal academic concern about the burgeoning effects of marketplace imperatives towards a reasoned normative discourse on the identification of counter-strategies that make sense. No doubt, within the space available, this paper can offer only a plea for a political engagement in line with our critical pedagogy as a prelude to what might constitute an engaged critically informed research in practice (Collins, 2003 a; Collins & Swann, 2003) for education and work. Apart from an emphasis on agency, in the face of our seemingly enduring postmodern sensibilites, this paper seeks to evoke the vital historical legacy connecting adult education to the lives of working people.
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 | 0.015 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.091 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".