Confessing Regulation or Telling Secrets? Opening up the Conversation on Graduate Supervision
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
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it