Considerations for Seeking Equity and Justice through Pedagogical Partnership
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Student-faculty pedagogical partnership has recently been understood to have the potential to contribute to equity and justice in postsecondary education. Nevertheless, important equity-related concerns about partnership have also been raised. In a presentation at a previous Symposium on Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, one of the co-authors of this article proposed a series of "tentative principles" for working toward equity in and through student-faculty partnership, which synthesized and foregrounded some of these possibilities and critiques. In this article, we share these "tentative principles," as well as a series of critical responses to them, offered by the three co-authors. In so doing, we aim to offer an expanded set of significant considerations for those interested in student-faculty partnership and equity, and to invite and encourage further discussion and critique rather than reify singular principles.
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 | 0.076 | 0.055 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.024 | 0.118 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.024 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.022 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".