Bibliographic record
Abstract
How to Be an Ally Christine Bold, Professor This September, in a graduate class, we read Dancing On Our Turtle’s Back by Leanne Betasamosake Simpson (Michi Saagiig Nishnaabeg); forty years ago, as an undergraduate, I read The Uses of Literacy by Richard Hoggart. Deeply embedded in very different cultures, both works expose the violence of state education. When read within English studies classrooms, their challenge—echoed by many critically engaged works over the decades—is: What is “English” as “discipline” good for? Forty years ago, an answer seemed to lie in the discipline embracing “the popular.” Now, Simpson and others reveal that the deeper lesson was always about allyship. Our discipline’s missteps have come when we responded with, quoting Simpson, “cognitive imperialism.” The best initiatives have started by listening to cultural specificities and refusals (in Simpson’s case, deeply grounded Nishnaabeg lessons about “the art of kindness in knowledge”) and working to change institutional, pedagogical, and scholarly priorities accordingly. Christine Bold, Professor School of English and Theatre Studies University of Guelph Copyright © 2015 Association of Canadian College and University Teachers
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".