MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4246862036 · doi:10.37514/per-b.2011.2379.2.16

"An Engrained Part of My Career": The Formation of a Knowledge Worker in the Dual Space of Engineering Knowledge and Rhetorical Process

2011· book-chapter· en· W4246862036 on OpenAlex

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.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typebook-chapter
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Education and Curriculum Development
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
KeywordsRhetorical questionDual (grammatical number)Space (punctuation)Process (computing)Knowledge workerSociologyKnowledge managementEpistemologyEngineeringComputer sciencePhilosophyWork (physics)LinguisticsMechanical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For as long as human beings have used it to organize and conduct their activities, writing has played an integral role in the creation, sharing, and contestation of knowledge.Tracing the intertwined history of writing and secular knowledge of civilizations in Europe, the Middle East, the Mediterranean, China, India, and Mesoamerica, and Europe, Bazerman and Rogers (2008a, b), for example, map out the complex ways in which writing has been instrumental to the formation of knowledge institutions, disciplines, and communities.In the last few decades, however, the question about the role of writing in the production of knowledge has gained new salience with the rise of what has commonly been termed the knowledge society, where civic life as well as much economic activity depend on the production and sharing of knowledge.Indeed, according to some estimates, knowledge accounts for about three fourths of the value produced in the knowledge economy (Neef, 1998, ctd. in Brandt, 2005), rendering it "more valuable than land, equipment, or even money" (Brandt, p. 167).And because much of this knowledge is created, shared, inscribed, contested, and used largely through various textual forms, writing has moved centre stage in all sectors of society.As Brandt (2005) observes in her study of writing in contemporary knowledge-intensive organizations, with its integral role in the production of knowledge, writing fuels the knowledge economy, with written products becoming Together, the contributions to this book paint a compelling and nuanced picture of the diverse roles writing plays in knowledge-intensives societies, the exigencies that arise for writing in knowledge-intensive societies, and the ways in which rhetoric and writing work to produce, share, question, marginalize, or advance knowledge in civic, workplace, and institutional spaces.Drawing on diverse theoretical traditions, the chapters also offer important insights into the ways in which we conceptualize the epistemic nature of writing and the implications these have for the study and teaching of writing.What unites the work presented in this book is the recognition that what knowledge is, what counts as knowledge, how we arrive at knowledge, who gets to participate in the production and sharing of knowledge are questions negotiated rhetorically by local communities, institutions, disciplines, or other groups engaged in the production of knowledge.Most importantly, perhaps, what cuts across all chapters is the realization that in knowledge-intensive societies, we mark an historical moment in the development of writing studies as a discipline dedicated to the study of human thought and knowledge: It is an historical moment in which much depends on the ways in which the discipline finds its curricular and research space in institutions tasked with the production of knowledge.As the contributions to this book testify, we have arrived at a stage in human development where we can no longer afford to produce knowledge without a discipline that offers the research base and theory to allow for rigorous critiques of how our discursive knowledge-making practices enable and constrain what we can and cannot know.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.882
Threshold uncertainty score0.680

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it