MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4384694311 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15564

Not All Who Want To, Can--Not All Who Can, Will: Extending Notions of Unconventional Doctoral Dissertations

2023· dissertation· en· W4384694311 sur OpenAlexaffabout
Brittany Amell

Notice bibliographique

Revuenon disponible
Typedissertation
Langueen
DomaineArts and Humanities
ThématiqueDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Établissements canadiensCarleton University
Organismes subventionnairesSchool of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies
Mots-clésScholarshipCuriosityNarrativePrivilege (computing)IndigenousSociologySkepticismEthnographyEpistemologyPolitical sciencePsychologyLawLiteratureSocial psychologyPhilosophyArt

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

My research seeks to destabilize imaginings of dissertations-conventional and otherwise-by highlighting a range of doctoral dissertations that, seemingly against all odds, manage to diverge from well-worn epistemic and textual paths.Whether it's a dissertation from South Africa whose author brings auto-ethnography and illness narratives into a discipline known for its skepticism of anything qualitative (Richards, 2012), a dissertation from Canada whose author purposely eschews standard edited academic English in order to privilege traditional Indigenous knowledges (Stewart, 2015), or a dissertation from the United States whose author coded and designed a digital scholarly edition of Ulysses without writing a single chapter in the process (Visconti, 2015), my research questions what brings these dissertations together as well as considering what sets them apart.To reach a contextualised understanding of unconventional dissertations, including how they are produced and received, I adopt a textographic approach to the study of writing.Informed by this approach, as well as my stance towards writing overall, this dissertation draws on data that includes questionnaire responses, transcripts from unstructured interviews with writers of unconventional dissertations, and unconventional dissertations.Findings indicate that tendencies to conflate 'doctoral dissertations' with conceptions of legacy forms of scholarly communication still prevail.At the same time, the present study demonstrates how some dissertations appear conventional on the surface to belie the unconventionality lurking below.Even entrenched forms of scholarship can shift when the functions and values motivating these forms are approached with open curiosity.Finally, while this study confirms widespread views that not all who want to create an unconventional dissertation will be able to, it also highlights some reasons for why those who can create unconventional dissertations may still choose to refrain.Framed as a response to urgent calls for critical examinations of how scholarly knowledge is produced, communicated, and assessed, this study contributes to a small but rapidly growing area of research that tracks 'unconventional' or 'non-traditional' scholarly projects and their lifecycles.Finally, this study also responds to collective needs for publicly accessible resources that can be used to advocate for diverse forms of scholarship and the equitable practices and infrastructures required to sustain them. Gratitude & AcknowledgementsI could tell you that I worked extremely hard to pull this dissertation off and it would be true.But it wouldn't be the entire truth.To push this dissertation to the finish line, I relied extensively on the support of others such as:• The staff at the daycare who looked after my baby while I focused on writing, as well as the subsidy the City provided to make childcare (slightly) more affordable • My husband, Sean Botti, who really tried to listen to me and care about my topic, even after working all day, and who was one of the first people to hear me speak my dreams of being a researcher and academic out loud and cheer • Staff at Carleton University, at every possible level of service, including Joan Grant, Connie Wall, and Tracey Wright-administrative geniuses in the School of Linguistics and Applied Language Studies • My supervisor, Dr. Guillaume Gentil, who gave me room to run with my ideas and who also (somehow) always managed to find the perfect moment to introduce some ideas about structure • Dr. Shawn Graham and Dr. Mary Ton, both members of my examining committee, for their thoughtful comments and support • Dr. Cecile Badenhorst, whose cheering and invitations to collaborate kept me steady throughout my journey, which included becoming pregnant during a flipping pandemic • Dr. James Burford, who generously responded to my "email"-which was really a short essay on all of the things I thought in response to an article he wrote-with a short essay of his own, sparking what I hope will become a long journey of similar moments between us • My therapist (yes, I am serious), whose continuous care and careful prodding has helped me to blossom • My circle of

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,035
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,056
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesMétarecherche
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: Méthodes · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,965
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,183

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0350,056
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0040,003
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0130,088
Communication savante0,0210,019
Science ouverte0,0020,015
Intégrité de la recherche0,0030,007
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0020,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,061
Tête enseignante GPT0,342
Écart entre enseignants0,281 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
DomaineMéthodes
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2023
Routes d'admission2
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même sujetDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesTravaux en français237 207