Bibliographic record
Abstract
This thesis refuses the distinction between Special Education and its presupposition, Unspecial Education, arguing that we should refuse to become Unspecially Educated. It moves through the poetics of relation to experiment affective, processual, relational, and collective modes of study. Examining normativity as a perceptive tendency which orients knowledge production and value frameworks within the social sciences and education and literacy research, it contributes a theory of “attention abundance” as a mode of study which has been misunderstood as “attention deficit”. Deviating from the framework of diagnosis and the certain track of methodology, attention abundance as an uncertain wandering presents an ethics of study that is radically empirical and speculatively pragmatic. Taking an interest in the ethical and relational stakes that emerge in between pre-given research aims and institutional learning models, the thesis explores poetic deviations between the ordinary proceedings of several empirical research fieldworks across secondary schools, a youth center, a writing workshop, and a pedagogic exhibit in a museum, across Canada, the United States, Australia, and Brazil. As education and literacy research awakens to the ethics of wandering off the track of the colonial errand of research, toward the surplus value of our thinking communities and the more ethical entanglements they invent, we need more ways of attending to this abundance. By asking how to develop new pedagogical sensitivities, how the poetics of relation seeds new ways of thinking about collective study, how cracking normative assumptions about knowledge production and value might truly engage the risk of thought in education and literacy research, and how the poetics between these questions exceeds the presuppositions of an Unspecial Education toward more special ways of living and learning together, poétigogies from the interstices are tentatively invented and lived
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 | 0.007 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.075 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".