Recognising cultural capital through shared meaning-making in cross-cultural partnership practices
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
There are growing scholarly conversations about involving culturally and linguistically diverse students in learner-teacher partnership practices—practices that can pave pathways toward greater inclusion in higher education. Theorising power and identity through the lens of culture invites recognition of differing ways of knowing, being, and doing that shape learner-teacher interactions in higher education. In this conceptual article, we offer a framework to further efforts of redistributing power through intercultural partnership praxis. Two vignettes drawing on lived experience of being in a cross-cultural learner-teacher partnership project are employed to reveal the theory-practice possibilities. We argue that the careful, critical attention on the role culture plays in the relational work of learner-teacher partnership advances more culturally responsive pedagogical collaborations in higher education. In doing so, partnership praxis moves closer toward recognition of cultural capital and redistribution of power for learners and teachers engaging in cross-cultural pedagogical partnership.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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