MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4380052786 · doi:10.21428/f1f23564.760119d3

Constellations of Community, Care, and Knowledge:A Collection of Vignettes from Pandemic Times

2023· article· en· W4380052786 on OpenAlexaff
Theresa N. Kenney, Emily Goodwin, A Cochrane, Linzey Corridon, Maddie Brockbank, Sarah Paust

Bibliographic record

VenueIDEAH · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicQualitative Research Methods and Ethics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConstellationPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PsychologyMedicineAstronomyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our Relational PracticeThis article brings together six graduate students from the 2020-2021 graduate residency program at the Lewis and Ruth Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship-an annual, interdisciplinary program for emerging Digital Humanities (DH) scholars at McMaster University.Over the year of our residency, we found ourselves interrogating normative assumptions about and approaches to graduate training, mentorship, productivity, pedagogy, and public scholarship in DH.At the same time, our individual experiences of precarity and illness during a pandemic heightened the nefarious ways in which, in-and outside of academia, the colonial and the neoliberal abound.Our collective response to the pressures of both the pandemic and the university, however, centred on a deliberate and collaborative development of a community that privileged the networking of care and co-production of knowledge.The following six vignettes describe, honour, and extend our community practice as a means to reflect on the potentials of what we term intentional constellations of community in DH.By mobilizing a compilation of pieces rather than a unified authorial voice, we consider knowledge-making as a collaborative endeavour, in turn practicing relational methods to upend straight, colonial, and neoliberal modes of inquiry.Taken together, our interconnected vignettes enact a shared reflexive practice that we aim to centre in DH graduate training and mentorship.Established in 2012 as a collaboration between the University Library and the Faculty of Humanities, the Sherman Centre for Digital Scholarship (SCDS) offers technical and consultation services, workshops, and other learning opportunities that invite campus community members into digital scholarship approaches.As

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0290.012
Scholarly communication0.0050.006
Open science0.0030.010
Research integrity0.0090.012
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.542
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIDEAHSame topicQualitative Research Methods and EthicsFrench-language works237,207