Toward redressing inequities through partnership: A critical assessment of an equity-focused partnership initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing recognition of the potential for student-faculty/staff partnerships to attend to and redress inequities within postsecondary education. As a result, there are an increasing number of partnership initiatives and programs that foreground principles of equity and justice in their design and delivery. This article reports findings from research that assessed an equity-focused partnership initiative, piloted in 2019, at a research-intensive Canadian institution. We describe the distinctive features of the pilot, including our efforts to enhance equity in and through recruitment and support for student and faculty participants during the pilot, and report findings pertaining to outcomes, process indicators, and positionality and social location. The findings suggest tentatively positive outcomes for participants and contribute to existing scholarship by raising important complexities and limitations relating to issues of access, support, and scale of equity-focused partnerships.
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 | 0.182 | 0.129 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.032 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| 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".