Storying the Terroir of Collaborative Writing: Like Wine and Food, a Unique Pairing of Mentoring Minds
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
As two faculty members in a Canadian post‐secondary teacher education context, the authors inquired into their collaborative writing process initiated through an informal faculty mentoring relationship. Situating their writing in the discourses of personal practical knowledge, social constructionism, narrative inquiry, and autobiography grounds their understanding of relational writing as side‐by‐side collaborators who engage in a bodily co‐present writing process, negotiating the many nuances of text construction. By using a metaphor of carefully pairing exquisite wine with fine food, they convey the mutual co‐construction of their lived experiences that evolve through relational writing. Highlighting related literature in the areas of mentoring, writing terminology, traits of collaborators, writing process, and benefits of collaboration assists them in comparing and contrasting the literature with features unique to their own collaboration. They conclude by noting critical issues and implications regarding collaborative writing that offer insight into the importance of honoring collaborative scholarship within academic contexts.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it