Confessing Regulation or Telling Secrets? Opening up the Conversation on Graduate Supervision
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The supervisory relationship is at the heart of the institutional and interpersonal structures that make up graduate education, but it is rarely problematized (publicly) or used as a site for the analysis of university adult education. This article results from the challenge issued by a (feminist) woman graduate student to her male nonfeminist adviser to do just that. It aims to encourage others in the field to join the dialogue, to demonstrate how a personal narrative methodology can deepen understandings of the student-supervisor relationship, and to explore how the power dynamics of this relationship affect both knowledge creation (and its legitimation) and the socialization process in graduate education. We alternate between telling our stories, connecting them to the existing literature on supervision, and drawing (different) conclusions about ethics, power relations, institutional and interpersonal responsibilities, research, gender, and the (re) production of academic and (inequitable) social structures in university adult education.
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 | 0.014 | 0.039 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.063 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".