Walking the complexities between two worlds: A personal story of epistemological tensions in knowledge production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, I tell the autoethnographic stories of epistemological tensions emerging from my entanglement with Indigenous and Western ways of knowing in my journey towards my doctoral research in social work. I link these tensions to broader socio-political and historical tensions that tie together the West and the Global South. I highlight the sharp contrasts and contradictions as well as the nuanced contestations in the production of knowledge. I follow a chronological order to organize my narratives into four parts. In the first part, I describe my experiences of walking in two worlds. In the second part, I explore how I knew what I knew, depicting my indigenous ways of knowing. In the third part, I examine Western ways of knowing, depicting the subjugation of my indigenous ways of knowing. In the final part, I address the hybrid ways of knowing that I embody by walking in many worlds.
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 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.028 | 0.083 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".