MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401256157 · doi:10.31468/dwr.1053

Diverse Contributing Body

2024· article· en· W4401256157 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Christin Wright-Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscourse and Writing/Rédactologie · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicArtistic and Creative Research
Canadian institutionsWilfrid Laurier University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 1962, the CCCC released a report titled “The Freshman Whose Native Language is Not English.” In this report, the chair argued for separate courses dedicated to teaching language-diverse students and staffed by instructors specially trained in Linguistics. Paul Kei Matsuda (1999; 2013) argues that this moment marks the institutional divide between U.S. Composition and Applied Linguistics that would go on to create a vacuum of knowledgeable peers in Composition. This vacuum meant that new composition theories interested in language learning were not held accountable by scholarship in Applied Linguistics. If Matsuda’s assessment of this division of labour is correct, it begs the question: does the same division of labour exist in a Canadian context between Writing Studies and L2 writing? How have these two fields related historically, and what implications does this relationship (or lack thereof) have on the future of writing instruction in Canada’s increasingly language-diverse classrooms? The purpose of this paper is to construct a narrative of the history of the relationship between Writing Studies and L2 Writing as it pertains to one of Canada’s two writing organizations: the Canadian Association for Studies in Language and Literature, also known as Inkshed. To that end, this paper excavates the Inkshed newsletters and conference programs from 1980 onward for archival research elucidating any potential cross-pollination between Writing Studies and L2 Writing. To further explore the relationship between these two fields in Inkshed’s past, this research builds on the work of Miriam E. Horne who composes a rich picture of Inkshed’s development in her book, Writing in a Community of Practice: Composing Membership in Inkshed. The findings from this paper reveal that not only did Writing Studies and L2 Writing scholarship “cross-fertilize” during the tenure of Inkshed, these two fields remained closely linked through the decades. In other words, at the writing of this paper, there does not appear to have ever been an institutional division of labour between Writing Studies and L2 Writing in the Canadian context. Ultimately, these findings contribute to the broader narrative of how Writing Studies has professionalized in a Canadian context. They also contribute to the ongoing conversation regarding how writing instructors, writing program administrators, and writing centre professionals can best support culturally and linguistically diverse writers in Canadian classrooms. By drawing on this longstanding relationship with L2 Writing, Writing Studies scholars and practitioners are uniquely situated to move into the future of higher education equipped with language-based writing theories that are rooted in a community of knowledgeable L2 Writing peers.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.918
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.156
GPT teacher head0.430
Teacher spread0.274 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueDiscourse and Writing/RédactologieSame topicArtistic and Creative ResearchFrench-language works237,207