“Like Bubbles Floating on the Surface:” Reflections on Transcultural Doctoral Seminar Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Four doctoral students and two professors from a Canadian university examined their reflections after returning from an international doctoral seminar held in Brisbane, Australia. Their research explored the transcultural experience to determine the students’ development as scholars in an international setting. Using a collaborative autoethnographic approach, the authors scrutinized their placement on Slimbach’s continuum (2005) where they found themselves “like all others, like some others, and like no others,” at different times during the seminar. The authors identify story, language, place, and time as critical themes in their own transcultural progression and placement on the continuum. Based on their collaborative inquiry and the themes that emerged, the authors provide considerations for future international doctoral seminars.
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 | 0.036 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.032 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| 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".