MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4284699437 · doi:10.31468/dwr.941

Opening Up Contested Spaces: Interdisciplinary Writing at an HBCU

2022· article· en· W4284699437 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Shawn Miklaucic, Erin DiCesare

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicReflective Practices in Education
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGraduation (instrument)Context (archaeology)Academic writingFace (sociological concept)Higher educationAsideMathematics educationIdentity (music)PedagogySociologyPsychologyPolitical scienceEngineeringSocial scienceHistoryLinguisticsLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inequalities in academic writing are not uncommon in higher education and become more complex when we look at the landscape of historically black colleges and universities (HBCUs), which serve a large number of first-generation Black students. HBCUs serve minority students and provide them a cultural connection that they often do not achieve at predominantly white institutions. Such first-generation students face a range of challenges and graduate at lower rates than other student. In terms of academic writing, such students often struggle to develop an academic identity and voice. At Johnson C. Smith University, an HBCU in the heart of Charlotte, North Carolina, all students, regardless of major, are required to complete a senior investigative paper. Many students struggle with this graduation requirement for a variety of reasons, ranging from inexperience with academic writing, lack of interest in the topic, and poor writing mechanics skills A goal specifically in the Interdisciplinary Studies Department is to have students develop a topic they find interesting and engaging. Many IDS students choose topics that address inequalities they have encountered and endured in their life or ones that are specific to their demographic (age, race, gender, sexual orientation, etc). When students are able to research and write about topics they are passionate about, their writing shows marked improvement as they develop a writing voice. As Bean (2011) notes, sometimes it is beneficial to set aside the formal academic writing expectations and focus on the content and context of a paper. This provides students with the message that what they are researching is valuable and they gain confidence in their research skills and thus their critical thinking skills. Bean also notes that when we focus on content rather than sentence-level correctness, the result is often a well-written paper, or one that is improved from the previous drafts. This article focuses on specific lessons learned from our experience working with HBCU seniors and how to apply the practices of content feedback to promote academic writing to help close the gap of academic inequality that many students experience.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.729
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.168
GPT teacher head0.516
Teacher spread0.347 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicReflective Practices in EducationFrench-language works237,207