Beyond words: Academic writing identities and imaginative (artistic) selves
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Exploring the de/construction of our imaginative (artistic) selves in relation to our academic writing, we foreground the notion that imaginative processes are part of the assembly of self/selves even as they are part of that de/construction. These imaginative selves are important for our professional identities and the daily negotiations we undertake in the context of institutional norms and expectations. Significant for our outward identities, these imaginative selves allow us to speak from different positions, possibly ones that resist conformity and compliance and actively contribute towards a personally ethical academic identity. Through narratives, images and a post-structural research lens, we explore our ‘hidden’ imaginative (artistic) selves in relation to our academic (writing) selves. Two themes emerged from the analysis of our narratives: (1) Into the unknown; and (2) Finding ourselves. We suggest that engagement with artistic, expressive and aesthetic activities in our personal time are important for processing – through metaphor and sensory means – our understanding of our professional identities, particularly, our writing selves. These incursions into our subjectivities reveal incongruity and ambiguity but also provide a sense of renaissance and regeneration.
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 | 0.007 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.031 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".