MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2182549206 · doi:10.82308/30694

Community membership through socially situated writing processes : a journey of inkshedding into Inkshed

2007· article· en· W2182549206 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miriam Horne

Bibliographic record

VenueeScholarship@McGill (McGill) · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicDiscourse Analysis in Language Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVignetteContext (archaeology)RepertoireSituatedSociologyPerspective (graphical)PsychologyEpistemologySocial psychologyComputer scienceGeographyLiterature

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This research examines the ways that socially mediated writing processes facilitate membership in communities of practice. Writing practices are located within rhetorical contexts and as newcomers to a community participate in community practices, they learn to recognize the rhetorical context in which they are writing. As their competence in the rhetorical context increases, they move from a position of peripheral membership in that community to a position of full participation or membership. Drawing on theories of practice and genre to understand the ways that writing practices form communities and shape membership, the research investigates the Canadian Association for the Study of Language and Learning (CASLL) and a writing process called inkshedding. The study uses a variety of qualitative methods to examine the ways that learning to inkshed facilitates (and sometimes frustrates) membership in CASLL. Each stage of the inkshedding activity is presented as a stage in membership. The initial stage of writing in inkshedding engenders feelings of anxiety that confront newcomers in their peripheral position. The circulation of texts illustrates the different ways that texts can be read, moving newcomers either to increased participation in the collective or leaving them on the periphery. The subsequent publication of selected texts mirrors the ways that newcomers may successfully become full participants. This study of writing practices and community membership contributes to a growing body of literature that demonstrates the central role that writing plays in the development of collectives. It is significant because it offers a detailed account of a process whereby individuals become full members of a community of practice through writing practices and thus supports notions of writing as socially situated. It also supports notions that community membership is attained through gradually increasing participation in community practices.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.020
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.039
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0200.039
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0320.050
Scholarly communication0.0230.021
Open science0.0030.026
Research integrity0.0030.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.055
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueeScholarship@McGill (McGill)Same topicDiscourse Analysis in Language StudiesFrench-language works237,207