Revisiting Collaborative Boundaries-Pioneering Change in Perspectives and Relations of Power.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we examine collaboration as a situated practice that defies a prescriptive definition mainly located in the interpersonal relations of professionals. We argue that collaboration does not merely depend upon “good” will or professionalism, rather interacts complexly with racial expectations that have been cultivated in institutions where racism is manifested in subtle ways. We use Critical Race Theory (Ladson-Billings & Tate, 1995) to examine how we as 2 different pairs of teacher educators in innovative programs in different sites faced racial tensions through our co-teaching experiences. Each racially diverse pair consisted of a more senior faculty member and an international teaching assistant. Hence we discuss the tensions that are inevitable as we professionals collaborate across relations of power and race. We argue for a more complex understanding of what it means to collaborate from these different social positions.
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 | 0.030 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.039 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| 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".