Some Epistemological Groundwork for a Qualitative Analysis of a Communication Community of Practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper describes a study that attempts to assess learning transfer in an engineering communication programme through a qualitative study using narrative and rhetorical theory, both of which are humanistic theories that have only recently been considered in such assessment. The communicationprogramme attempts to foster a communication community of practice among its students, and thereby ensure that the skills they cultivate in the classroom can be applied in the various contexts provided by the engineering profession. The researchers use narrative and rhetorical theory to analyze transcripts of in-depth interviews, in order to detect evidence of what EtienneWenger would regard as an identity of participation.
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 | 0.160 | 0.156 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.026 | 0.128 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.032 | 0.030 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.011 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".