Learning from a Decade of the Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education Publications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Informed by critical feminisms, we undertook a cartography of publications in the Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education (CJSAE) from 2009 to 2019. We focused on two sets of publications: those that reported on community-based research (CBR) methods and those that aimed to address marginalization as a mode of oppression, with a particular interest in those articles in which CBR and marginalization intersect. Our explorations led us to reflect on important shifts in CBR reported in CJSAE in the decade of study, as well as persistent tensions surrounding the recognition of this research within mainstream academia. We also observed that the theorization of marginalization, and how this concept is taken up with respect to researcher positionality and the politics of research, requires more attention in adult education research. We interpret adult education research as an institution, a regime of truth (Smith, 1987) that opens and/or forecloses possibilities for social transformation, with implications for academic practices and the democratization of knowledge.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.038 | 0.061 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.014 | 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".