Praxis-Poiesis: University–Community Relationship in an Epoch of Uncertainty and Disruption
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents findings from a critical ethnographic study that spanned 3 years from 2018 to 2021 in a Canadian postsecondary context and engaged transdisciplinary quantum feminisms as a conceptual framework.The purpose of the study was to formulate an ethical frame of reference that could facilitate exchanges within university-community partnerships.This study was ongoing as the global COVID-19 pandemic unfolded, a time frame that also paralleled heightened social and political awareness of racial disparity in Canada, the United States, and around the globe.These factors prompted the authors to expand the scope of the project midway to also consider the impact of COVID-19 on university-community partnerships.Given this, a main research question guides this study: What qualifies universitycommunity partnerships as ethical?It is contextualized by a secondary question: What is the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on university-community partnerships?Findings from this study led to the development of an ethical frame of reference for university-community partnerships entitled Praxis-Poiesis: Intentional Allyship, Reciprocal Relationships, and Transilience.
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 | 0.017 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.045 | 0.092 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.016 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| 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 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".