"An Engrained Part of My Career": The Formation of a Knowledge Worker in the Dual Space of Engineering Knowledge and Rhetorical Process
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
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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