Collaborative Writing as a Process of Inquiry within Knowledge Ecologies
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
While the content presented in this article is propositional in form, what it aims to reveal is the processual / procedural nature of emergent multi-vocal research, as well as the tacit knowledges that grow through the process of collaborative writing within the complex networks (root systems) of knowledge ecologies. This contribution hopes to unearth the ephemeralities of the various processes, which do not and cannot appear on the page (a place and form commonly utilized as the medium of choice for academic knowledge transmission). This article starts by mapping the multi-pronged and multi-layered landscape of our research assemblage and explores the notion of epistemic justice as an orientation towards entangled knowledge ecologies through the medium of collaborative writing and metaphor-work, which we take up in the second part of the article. Finally, we journey back to the broader research project and what our co-writing as a method of inquiry revealed along the way. We revisit how our journey of communal gathering continues to reflect and rebuild our evolving curiosities and attunements to the broader research terrain on Expanding Knowledge Landscapes.
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 | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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