Collaborative Writing as a Process of Inquiry within Knowledge Ecologies
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.
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 | 0.039 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.064 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.026 | 0.025 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 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".