Notice bibliographique
Résumé
With this brief postscript, we want to take a moment to reflect on this milestone in the ongoing journey of Disrupting interviews and consider where we might go next. As many authors in this special issue shared, the process of a Disrupting interview itself carves out a space—an ethical space—for reflection on one's own complicity and responsibilities around challenging oppression and injustice within institutions, disciplines, teaching spaces, and oneself. The process of writing these chapters was, for many authors, another chance to reflect and further engage with the learning journey this method can provoke. The process of collaborating on this special issue has opened co-editors, associate editors, and contributing authors to the possibilities and differences that Disrupting interviews present. Joan noted the way that her approach emphasizes pedagogical applications with instructors, while Michelle, Lee, and Gabrielle focus on building an ethical community space where theory and practice blend. Gabrielle and Robin exchanged understandings around what a medicine walk could entail and signify in distinct Indigenous nations and individuals. Over the multi-year span of the project, we all noted how local, national, and global news events impacted conversations within and beyond Disrupting interviews (for instance, the ability of facilitators to name decolonization, reconciliation, Indigenization, diversity, equity, inclusion, and anti-racism as driving principles of the work, given shifting national conversations on these topics). In the invited reflective submissions, our use of a collegial peer review process allowed for an element of community building and sharing across Disrupting interview sites, and among individual participants who may not have realized they were part of a collective. Many authors shared appreciation for the opportunity to learn about what other instructors experienced in their Disrupting interviews, including how the process impacted them professionally and personally, and shared that collaborating in this special issue helped them further process and expand on their original interviews. As we mark this milestone in the Disrupting interview journey, we wonder where the project will go next. Will more people join the work, will more sites emerge? Will some collaborations come to a natural conclusion? What new adaptations will be developed? Will we host a conference, an institute, a gathering? Yet we also want to be open to the possibility that we do not know where we are going. The process of completing a Disrupting interview is full of choices and decisions, roadblocks and gates, pathways that are taken, pathways that are avoided or abandoned, pathways that are closed or barricaded or that only appear to be so. The uncertainty and the unknowing are a part of the process of Disrupting interviews themselves, and so we expect uncertainty and unknowing to also be a part of the project's future. We look forward to whatever answers come our way and hope that you will help us to find them.
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,006 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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.
score_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 découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».