From Bubbles to Foam, A Nomadic Interpretation of Collaborative Publishing: A Review of Jorge Lucero and Colleagues’ Article in Art Education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This review is a bricolage of nomadic encounters with Jorge Lucero and colleagues’ (2016) article on ways to engage with collaborative publishing. Lucero presents a Facebook discussion amongst practitioners denouncing the limited power of practitioners in shaping academic discourse. It shows how social media can serve as a platform for inviting the practitioner’s voice into research. The authors illustrate that by using Facebook, practitioners’ unfamiliarity and discomfort with academic standards can be bypassed. It demonstrates metalogue as a conceptual form of writing that disrupts the structure of conversations and challenges the authorial researchers’ voices. A critical note, however, is whether it is beneficial in the long term to consider the academic and social media parts as separate accounts. We argue that collaborative publishing requires collaborative research and writing in the first place. In response to the article, we started a WhatsApp conversation. This enabled us to reflect on the content of the article and experience the use of social media as a collaborative writing method ourselves.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 teacher head, 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".