A narrative inquiry into the identity making of black women in Canadian higher education
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The voices and experiences of black women in higher education in Canada have largely been absent. When they do speak out against institutional structures or challenging issues of power, they encounter issues of colonialism, racism, gendering, silencing, and othering. Such experiences have created stories of humiliation and oppression which questions black women's integrity and shapes their identity The objectives of this research are to i) expand current understandings of the ways in which black women’s is impacted by power structures in higher education; ii) contribute to responsive policies, practices and programs that create possibilities that identity-making in black women are shaped in higher education through equitable experiences. Methodology: A focus on experience is central to this research and has called me to engage in a narrative inquiry study. A diverse methods of data collection was used including recorded conversations with guiding questions, letter writing, memory box items, and journal writing to gain insights into participant’s experiences. Outcome: Across the narratives participants narratives validated experiences of othering, invisibility, resilience and racism in Canadian higher education classrooms and campuses.
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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.030 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.011 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".