Bibliographic record
Abstract
That films generate empathy is often assumed, but there is a gap in research to date that explores how theoretically and pedagogically this can occur. Olson (2013) has argued that the idea that students will become more empathic simply through reading or watching fiction is “wishful thinking” (p. 170). To move beyond wishful thinking, this study examines a more nuanced conception of best practices, by beginning with the question: How could empathy, in the sense of a “radically ‘unsettling’ affective experience” (Pedwell, 2012, p. 166), produce what Rancière (2010) called dissensus— the sensory break with the normal order of things—in order to imagine new possibilities. Within an educational context, my goal was to encourage growth in the capacity to visualize the dialectical nature of difference— how it is constructed—rather than simply to learn about the Other. Using methods designed to examine how viewing is (and is not) transformative in a specific context, I facilitated three film viewing sessions with ten students and faculty members at a Canadian university. The three films, Stupid Young Heart, Rhymes for Young Ghouls, and Meditation Park. My intent was to prompt participant dialogue related to intercultural communication, justice and anti-racist education. The sessions served as a case study into how viewing and discussing films illustrates theoretical contributions, drawing together insights from film theory, empathy philosophy, affect theory, transformative education, and anti-racist education. I conclude that the films did help to conceptualize change as a matter of doing things differently. The films also helped participants realize that there is a much larger world of media available than the limited sources they were accustomed to. My research project contributes to the ongoing discussions in media studies and anti-racist education and their relation to film’s role as an affective, transformative learning strategy and experience
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.043 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".