Developing a Critical Border Dialogism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book is based upon research conducted both before and after a visit to Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia in March, 2003. During this time period United States (US) bombs fell on Baghdad, Iraq. An invasion of US and British ground forces in Baghdad and other Iraqi cities followed the initial bombing. Events during the onset of the war became a catalyst for gaining insight on how the US invasion of Iraq impacted the lives of teachers and their students in Malaysia. In June and July of 2003, the researcher returned to interview educators in Sabah, Malaysia. Follow-up electronic communications with educators were conducted through the remainder of 2003. After the research in Malaysia, the researcher conducted studies of educators' perspectives in Mexico, Canada, and the US. The key objective of the investigations in all four countries was to uncover attitudes and pedagogical comparisons of educators and their students regarding US policies, including war and counter-terrorism policies. Studies in the US took place in close proximity to the US/Mexico international border. Studies were analyzed through the lenses of place-based pedagogy, border pedagogy, and issues-centered approaches that provided baseline information for transnational comparisons and cross-comparative case studies. In this manner, the researcher contemplated the intersection of a critical pedagogy of place and border pedagogy. From these studies emerged new understandings and the development of a critical border dialogism. This critical border dialogism is based on following principles: heteroglossia, meliorism, critical cosmopolitanism, nepantla, dialogism feminism, and pragmatic hope. By its nature critical border dialogism engages us in multidirectional discourses that allow us to tackle issues and work toward enduring conflict resolutions. When applied in classroom settings critical border dialogism moves educators, students, and cultural workers in the direction of a critical border praxis.
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 | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.029 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| 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".