Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities of practice are emerging as an innovative approach to faculty development. While collaborative learning is becoming popular in the classroom, autonomy and individualism continue to dominate the culture of higher education for faculty. However, as we begin to recognize that old solutions to new problems are no longer effective, there is a growing desire for innovative engagement requiring the embrace of multiple perspectives. This takes the development of new habits of mind and discourse. For my dissertation, I engaged in a qualitative study with my colleagues where we experimented with generative approaches to dialogue in a community of practice. It became apparent that creating supportive, collegial spaces where we can explore beyond the edge of what we currently know can help us bridge across differences, harness the potential within diversity, and step into the emerging future. However, it also became apparent that this quality of dialogue is not easy.
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 | 0.039 | 0.068 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.023 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.023 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.017 | 0.003 |
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".