MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2755604871 · doi:10.31468/cjsdwr.576

Interrogating Conflicting Narratives of Writing in the Academy: A Call for Research

2017· article· en· W2755604871 on OpenAlex
Katie Byrant

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMentoring and Academic Development
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIdentity (music)MetaphorNarrativeSociologyMedia studiesAcademic writingLazinessIdentity politicsWriting centerPoliticsIntrospectionLiteracyGender studiesPsychologyAestheticsPedagogyPolitical scienceLawLiteratureLinguistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A safe haven in an often unsafe place: I would use this metaphor to describe the space writing studies and a university writing centre have offered me, as I’ve attempted to find my own place as a feminist in the academy. I feel these two things are my rocks. They are firm, solid places for me to reside amongst the challenges I’ve experienced as a writer. The reasons for my struggles with writing for academic purposes are difficult to pinpoint. Some would say they stem from my lack of literacy, hinting that laziness could be a culprit. Others might suggest they are connected to my subjective identity as a first-generation, female university student. Or others might take the discussion of subjective identity a bit further, arguing that my identity as a feminist, and my determination to bring my feminist politics into my academic work explain these challenges.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.493
Threshold uncertainty score0.595

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.432
GPT teacher head0.586
Teacher spread0.154 · 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