MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2737723772 · doi:10.56105/cjsae.v29i2.5376

Predicaments of the Academic Community-Based Educator

2017· article· en· W2737723772 on OpenAlexaffvenue
M. Tanya Brann-Barrett, Janis Timm‐Bottos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicService-Learning and Community Engagement
Canadian institutionsConcordia UniversityCape Breton University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsScholarshipPublic relationsPower (physics)Work (physics)Space (punctuation)SociologyPerceptionAffect (linguistics)Academic communityBalance (ability)Community engagementPolitical scienceEngineering ethicsPedagogyPsychologySocial scienceEngineeringLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many academic educators who hope to contribute to socially just community building recognize that working in partnerships with people and organizations outside the academy is important. Working within publicly funded universities and engaging in community‑based work, however, require juggling responsibilities to multiple stakeholders. In this article, we present reflections on predicaments we encounter as academic community‑based educators as we balance obligations, relationship responsibilities, and outcome expectations that affect our work. We overview our educative projects and share examples of predicaments we encounter. We offer preliminary interpretations of what predicaments tell us about how power plays upon our practice and views of scholarship that may help us disrupt it. We contend that broad and inclusive perceptions of scholarship are required to allow space for community‑based educators and their partners to critically engage in community building that supports all society.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.095
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.095
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.002
Science and technology studies0.0700.114
Scholarly communication0.0340.020
Open science0.0050.055
Research integrity0.0080.016
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.077
GPT teacher head0.393
Teacher spread0.316 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal for the Study of Adult EducationSame topicService-Learning and Community EngagementFrench-language works237,207