A Collaborative Practitioner Inquiry into Societal and Power-Relational Contexts of an Activist Writing Community’s Textual Events
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article describes experiences with a community literacy approach to writing instruction in a cultural studies and literary criticism workshop in Tehran, Iran (2009-2014). The writers narrate the process of writing a book undertaken by a group of Iranian feminists, who chose to write about and critique dominant discourses in Iranian hip hop, in an attempt to start a conversation with young underground Iranian rappers. Adopting collaborative practitioner inquiry, the researchers discuss different steps of the process of writing and publishing the book, and also the pitfalls and challenges that they encountered in the project and the ensuing interventions. In the course of sharing their reflections, the writers highlight the sociocultural and power relational contexts of their writing process to sensitise writing instructors to the often invisible social and political layers of the act of writing.
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 | 0.023 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".