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
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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