A spectacle of otherness: an autoethnography of a conference presentation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This article is an autoethnography that describes an emotional journey of writing and; presenting a conference paper. While it is a personal story being told, it is a story that speaks to many other minorities in academia who continuously need to legitimize their voices in the midst of the dominant colonialist perspective. The intention of writing this autoethnography is to speak to the feelings of otherness experienced, to disrupt the traditional academic voice (Pathak, 2010), and to allow for the expression of a reality that is often hidden to those with a colonialist frame (Mohanty, 2003). Design/methodology/approach This article uses autoethnography as a methodology to reveal a personal story. Since autoethnographies help us make sense of our fragmented lives, the journey is told in chronological segments, detailing the emotions leading up to the conference presentation and its aftermath. Findings The findings of the article expose some of the colonialist frameworks that are still embedded in academia. They also lie in the revelation of the “spectacle of otherness” endured in the process. Drawing the reader into the author's mind and heart with the intention of understanding the other is an important part of this paper. Originality/value The first contribution of this paper lies in its decolonizing project, where Western knowledge systems and their epistemologies are the object of inquiry. The second contribution of the paper lies in its attempt to write intersectional research that does not impose predetermined categories of analysis but writes beyond specific classifications of identity. Finally, it also lies in celebrating the subjective self as a place that is worth exploring.
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 | 0.011 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.017 | 0.012 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.002 |
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".