Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Citing is a political act. It is a practice that can work both sides of the same coin: it can give voice, and it can silence. Through this research, we call for those contributing to the scholarship of teaching and learning (SoTL) to attend to this duality explicitly and intentionally. In this multidisciplinary field, SoTL knowledge-producers bring the citation norms of their home disciplines, a habit that calls for interrogation and negotiation of the citation practices used in this shared space. The aim of our study was to gather data about how citation is practiced within the SoTL community: who we cite, how we cite, and what values, priorities, and politics are conveyed in these practices. We were also interested in whether any self-selected categories of identity (e.g., gender, career stage) related to self-described citation practices and priorities. Findings suggest several statistically significant relationships did emerge, which we identify as important avenues for further research and writing. We conclude with 10 principles of citation practices in SoTL.
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.
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 | 0.019 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| 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 it