Resistances and resiliencies in student-faculty pedagogical partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this article, we explore forms of psychological resistance that 10 female students perceived in their faculty partners and in themselves in the context of a pedagogical partnership program in the mid-Atlantic region of the United States. Positioning these students as “holders and creators of knowledge” (Delgado-Bernal, 2002, p. 106), our analysis draws on literature in academic development and psychology and on student responses to research questions to discuss how these student partners built resiliencies through the approaches they took to engaging the resistances they perceived. We first present the resistances these student partners perceived in their faculty partners and what factors they think might have contributed to such resistances. Next, we describe the approaches the student partners took to working through the resistances they perceived and the resistances they experienced in themselves. Finally, we analyze the ways that student partners developed resiliencies through productively engaging these forms of resistance.
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 | 0.013 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.026 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.030 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.000 |
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.
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".