Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In this piece I sift through my PhD dissertation, written a few years ago, and I read again some of the autoethnographic vignettes that I had interwoven with the theory, the methods, and my research findings. My reflections take me back to a time of sitting in coffee shops, alone but never lonely, deep in reflections, enjoying the experience of writing ‘differently.’ I remember even now that those were rare and special moments, when I gave myself permission to go down mysterious rabbit holes and describe what I saw, using creative writing modes. My reflections take me back further too, to my life back in India, pre-migration to Canada; and in this personal essay, I tease out the connections between who I was back then and how those experiences have formed me into the individual I am today. This personal essay is also an autoethnography about my PhD journey, and how the creative writing I could do as part of it helped nurture my spirit in difficult times, showing me the way forward through finding strength, voice and resilience. It is also about John Paul Lederach who taught me to ask the big picture question: why do I do what I do?
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 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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".