Intersecting Identities and Reflexive Practices: A Transformative Autoethnographic Study on Language Identity Construction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper explores the role of intersectional reflexivity in conducting an autoethnographic exploration of personal transformation within academic research. Using autoethnographic data from regular journaling, I illustrate my shift from a profoundly ingrained positivist research mode toward embracing alternative theoretical traditions that foreground the researcher’s active role in knowledge production. These traditions emphasize the researcher’s involvement as a social actor who actively influences the processes they study and challenges the conventional notion of objectivity and neutrality. Incorporating the concept of life capital, I infuse my positionality and lived experiences into the research process to enrich the depth and complexity of the analysis. Engaging reflexively in this qualitative exploration has profoundly unsettled my previous paradigmatic thinking to drive a continuous reconfiguration of my perspectives, identities, and scholarly practices. I argue that embracing reflexivity enhances the quality of research, fosters the renewal of the researcher’s self, and serves as a critical tool in research training across various educational settings.
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 | 0.018 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".