Foreword: Critical Futures: Community- Engaged Research in a Time of Crisis and Social Transformation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As I reflect on the chapters in this book, drawing on nourishment from the international conference hosted by the Community-Engaged Research Initiative at Simon Fraser University (SFU) in May 2022, I celebrate afresh the theme: Horizons: Crisis and Social Transformation in Community-Engaged Research.One compelling definition of the word horizon points to the converging intersection of the earth and sky as seen by an observer.The notion of horizon serves as a compelling metaphor in part because it underscores the importance of intersectionality and perspective.It summons a collective courageous mindset grounded in deep introspection and active imagination.And it also demands respect for a broad range of knowledges, experiences, and interests.As the theme suggests, horizons are indeed places where both crisis and transformation can be located if one can cultivate prophetic imagination in the process (Brueggemann, 2001;Kelley, 2002).It could not be more important to see and also name the crisis dimension in this mix.An aesthetically pleasing view -horizon -can carry complexities that evoke both joy and resignation.However, it is beyond the horizon that dreams meet imagination.Publicly engaged knowledge making demands that we take seriously the responsibility to be aware of and resist shrinking imagination in all its forms.Such audacity requires an enigmatic intentionality, which, in all honesty, includes unlearning much of what we academics have learned -a crisis of sorts -about the production and dissemination of knowledge, and our privileged roles in relation to this work.I do not believe it is possible to truly engage in generative knowledge making with a shrinking imagination.Each of the following chapters represents a kind of prophetic imagining.The authors unpack specific examples of systemic dysfunction, call for critical hope, and urge authentic analyses, suggesting ways that universities can play a deliberate role in addressing the urgent need Foreword: Critical Futures: Community-Engaged Research in a Time of Crisis and Social Transformation timothy k. eatman
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.067 | 0.015 |
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".