In wilderness, in community: mentorship, academia, and ‘emerging’ as a scholar in settler colonial institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We ground the emergence of the Northeast North American university on the stolen territories of Indigenous nations in the Puritan historical context of their origins. In particular, we examine the concept of academic mentorship of people identified as emerging scholars. We show how academic mentorship within this unchallenged and continued Puritanical framework functions as a disciplinary regime to assimilate scholars made marginal into the elite academic institution. Far from the bastions of progressive thought and action, we highlight the narrowly defined ways marginalized scholars must operate from within the Northeast North American university. This article derives from a panel presentation at a Canadian Historical Association annual meeting where we centred community building as a decolonizing research praxis, which became the central focus of Wolasuweltomuwakon – a community building gathering. This article holds the methodological practices we began to develop on that panel and during that gathering. We divided this article into three sections, each written by one of the three authors, together, and in conversation, with one another.
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 | 0.008 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.023 | 0.046 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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 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".