Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article presents the results of collaborative autoethnographical (CAE) research that investigated the group dynamics and processes of an undergraduate student, a post-doctoral fellow, and two senior administrators engaged in a students-as-partners (SaP) project. The CAE methodology allowed us to systematically, collaboratively, and iteratively analyze reflections on key takeaways from our experiences. We identified empowerment through learning and support and putting values into practice as essential components of working with SaP in mixed-role groups. This CAE research also substantiates the importance of negotiating existing power dynamics, as we identified a hierarchical structure within our group that we did not address during the actual project. Based on our group’s dynamics, we suggest that active reflection and communication regarding intersecting identities, shared and individual values, and an openness to learning and growth for all group members are critical components of working toward equitable partnerships with SaP.
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 | 0.042 | 0.150 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.020 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".