Bibliographic record
Abstract
Among the uses of poetry in qualitative inquiry is its ability to help us reflect on, play against, or perform a topic of interest (Prendergast, 2006). This writer attended a conference on the “Pedagogy of Privilege” and immersed himself in the discussion of multidimensional diversities, hence the production of this poem. Written from an etic perspective, this ethnographic poem is not a representation of ethnographic reality (Denzin, 1997; Maynard & Cahnmann-Taylor, 2010), but an abstraction of composite identities. This poem interrogates categories of sexual and gender identities, acknowledges multiple emotions, embodied experiences, and space; with an invitation for others to integrate their own voices and experiences. This poem is a form of writer’s reflexivity. Pedagogically, this poem could help students of social work and other helping professions to grapple with the complexity and fluidity of gender and sexual identities and the definition of family.
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 | 0.010 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 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".