Taking time and planting seeds: learning, relationships and equity work in academic development
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
Canadian higher education is shaped by colonialism and can be characterized as inequitable and inaccessible. This paper considers the work of academic developers in Canadian higher education who contribute to equity work, including work on Indigenisation and Reconciliation, in their institutions. By examining how academic developers have learnt to do equity work, this paper explores tensions between conventional academic development practices and approaches necessary for bringing about social change. Participants emphasize the limitations of learning to do equity work through conventional academic methods and highlight the significance of relationships for their learning. While participants emphasize that learning to do equity work relies on and is informed by relationships; contrastingly, academic development may frame relationships as means by which conventional academic can be achieved. These tensions renew and expand questions and critiques of what knowledge informs academic development practice and what kind of changes academic development can contribute to higher education.
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 | 0.005 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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