Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes a Cooperative Inquiry (CI) undertaken by seven transformative educators who set out to explore how they could better walk with the authority inherent in their professional roles so as to avoid unconsciously replicating unhealthy power dynamics. Their process revealed the insidious and cyclical nature of hegemony, enabling co-inquirers to uncover deeply ingrained patterns vis-a-vis power. Action/reflection cycles highlighted the role of self-policing, vulnerability, hegemonic traps, interruption practices, and the significance of wholeheartedness. Furthermore, the CI process itself was found to be empowering, as presentational knowledge and collective meaning-making supported the dismantling of isolation and shame that often accompanied and perpetuated feelings of disempowerment. Co-inquirers more effectively identified when and how cultural constructs affected them, thereby claiming greater agency in both personal and professional lives. The need for ongoing individual and collaborative reflexivity to reinforce and affirm positive, wholesome power dynamics was also shown.
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 | 0.015 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.040 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.028 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".