A Conversation about “Editing” Plurilingual Scholars’ Thesis Writing
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
Drawing on our combined experiences providing thesis writing support, we critically consider the tensions surrounding policies and practices aimed at plurilingual graduate students using English as an additional language (EAL). Our trioethnographic methodology allows us to unpack and explore the ethics framing our individual “editing” practices amid institutional norms, expectations and ideologies. Drawing on relevant literature in the field, our conversations or “trialogues” produce insights and raise questions surrounding the ethical imperative of providing effective thesis writing support for plurilingual EAL writers in an era of increasing internationalization. We conclude with suggestions for flexible, targeted writing support that challenges narrow epistemologies and stale ideologies regarding taboo editing practices of academic and language literacy brokers involved in the production and revision of thesis writing.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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