MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2205560373 · doi:10.1075/aral.38.3.02gag

Plurilingual teachers and their experiences navigating the academy

2015· article· en· W2205560373 on OpenAlexaffabout
Antoinette Gagné, Carrie Chassels, Megan McIntosh

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralian Review of Applied Linguistics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHigher Education Practises and Engagement
Canadian institutionsVancouver Island UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInternshipQualitative researchContext (archaeology)SociologyPedagogyUnpackingGraduate studentsApplied linguisticsLibrary sciencePsychologyMedical educationMedicineLinguisticsComputer scienceSocial science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Drawing on qualitative data collected from plurilingual teachers in the context of three research studies conducted at the University of Toronto between 2004 and 2015, this paper critically examines, through a dialogue between the three researchers, the experiences of plurilingual teacher candidates and graduate students in Education as they navigate the academy. A trioethnographic methodology is used, unpacking the underlying tensions of roles and positions held by each of the researchers in the Student Success Centre (SSC) which offers a range of support services and provides a space where plurilingual teacher learners can interact with plurilingual tutors during their academic journey which may include practica and internships. We relate our findings focussed on the SSC to the literature on diverse teachers in universities as well as writing centre research calling for significant changes in how to support plurilingual students in the academy in order to highlight lessons and strategies for equity.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.066

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0160.013
Scholarly communication0.0120.007
Open science0.0020.013
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.310 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralian Review of Applied LinguisticsSame topicHigher Education Practises and EngagementFrench-language works237,207