‘It’s a little complicated for me’: faculty social location and experiences of pedagogical partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pedagogical partnership is increasingly recognized as a practice with the potential to contribute to more just and equitable post-secondary education institutions. Previous studies have reported on the ways specific institutional programs attend to issues of equity, particularly considering if and how they involve students from marginalized groups. Similarly, others have argued for the scaling-up of partnership initiatives as a way to ensure greater inclusion and diversity amongst the staff and students who participate. Whilst the literature on this dimension of pedagogical partnerships grows, further attention to the ways in which faculty social locations influence and intersect with perceptions and experiences of partnerships is merited. Our study contributes to the literature exploring this issue. Our findings show a complex range of ways in which participants understand their social locations and the ways these influence their experiences of partnership, demonstrating the need for sophisticated conceptualizations of power and risk that attend to individuals’ positions within and outside of partnership spaces.
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 | 0.013 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.022 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".