Two educators reflect on their immigration experience through creative writing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Following Dewey’s philosophy of experience that all our life events inform how we evolve, both personally and professionally, two educators reflect on their immigration experiences. Being uprooted from one’s place of birth to another, at an oftentimes turbulent stage of development, young people face challenges in finding their sense of belonging. We engage in creative writing to reflect on our respective experiences of immigration to Canada to support our scholarship of teaching and learning. Using Dewey’s three criteria of experience: continuity, relationship, and situation, and Connelly and Clandinin’s Narrative inquiry self-study framework, we delve deeper into understanding how the transplantation from one continent to another continues to impact who we are today as persons and professionals. This critical reflection is of further value to us as educators, because we also want to gain a greater appreciation for our students’ experiences, most of whom have lived the stories of immigration. In this way, we hope to more effectively support and encourage our students, not only to survive, but to thrive in their new landscape. We trust our work will, likewise, be of service to educators worldwide who want to engage in their own inquiry of personally significant life events, and thus support the same in their students.
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 | 0.009 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.027 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| 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".