Bilingual returnee scholars’ identity in academic writing
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Academic writing is a dynamic process that in some senses reveals a writer’s scholarly identity. To illuminate how this identity-forming process occurs, in the present study, three Anglosphere-educated writing scholars in China were interviewed to uncover their English-Chinese bilingual scholarly identities focusing on their perspectives of academic writing in two languages. The findings reveal they were conscious of their bilingual scholarly identities as English and Chinese academic writers, and attributed their academic writing skill development to their education at universities overseas, despite holding different views about the rhetorical styles of English and Chinese academic writing. Although the three returnee scholars faced challenges with writing and publishing papers in Chinese journals, they consciously applied different approaches in practicing and promoting both an English writing style and evidence-based argumentation when writing and teaching academic writing to Chinese students. The present study unpacks the complex nature of the Chinese returnee scholars’ bilingual scholarly identity construction in academic writing while highlighting their contribution to the Anglo-centric globalization of academic writing and rhetorical development. Implications for graduate research training programs and research on academic writing identity are discussed.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 it