Ways of Knowing and Becoming: Learning Together in a Graduate Course on Interdisciplinarity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Developing as a scholar is a critical aspect of graduate school. In this article, we use an autoethnographic approach to explore our experiences in a newly redeveloped interdisciplinary graduate course. The course was designed to emphasize interdisciplinary scholarship and to encourage students’ awareness of their own developing epistemological, ontological, and axiological commitments. In this paper, we identify themes that arose from the final class paper, in which the students/researchers reflected on our development as emerging scholars. Through this course we developed an understanding of the value of interdisciplinarity, the cultural embeddedness of knowledge, and our own responsibilities as researchers in relation to social structures of power and marginalization. Our analyses of our experiences suggests that reflections on our own positionality and axiology are important for developing our identities as emerging scholars and that becoming a scholar may be more about the process than an end goal. We conclude with a discussion of how our learning in this course may be relevant for other instructors and emerging scholars.
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 | 0.013 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.011 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.019 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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.
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".