Researching Together: Disrupting Colonial Thinking in Higher Education and Beyond
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Las universidades, aunque se consideran centros de creación de conocimiento, también son producto del colonialismo. Este artículo se centra en un estudio autoetnográfico llevado a cabo por tres profesoras universitarias blancas que utilizamos pautas reflexivas para problematizar nuestra posición. Nuestro objetivo es comprendernos mejor a nosotras mismas y nuestras identidades, los beneficios que hemos obtenido del colonialismo y los enfoques apropiados que podemos adoptar para facilitar la descolonización de los planes de estudio. Consideramos que este autointerrogatorio y esta búsqueda colaborativa de significados, aunque a veces doloroso, constituyen una oportunidad enriquecedora y transformadora para el desarrollo personal y profesional, y un punto de partida para escuchar a los pueblos indígenas, trabajar con ellos y permitirles emprender una labor descolonizadora. Seguidamente, utilizamos esta experiencia para sugerir formas en las que otros y otras profesoras pueden participar en procesos similares de autorreflexión crítica y autodesarrollo, con el fin de desbaratar el pensamiento colonial en la educación superior y más allá.
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 | 0.017 | 0.022 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.050 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.019 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".