Paying it forward: Academic intergenerational support through the Scholarly Gathering Circle
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Traditional mentorship in higher education often assumes hierarchical relationships in professional development. While this model has its place, as scholars, we sought to co-create a more relational, reciprocal space where the whole person: mind-body-spirit, could belong and flourish. In response to these holistic learning principles, our Scholarly Gathering Circle (the Circle) was created as a mutually encouraging community that fosters the continuity of knowledge and experience across generations in a safe space. Methods: The Circle consists of a mentor, a retired professor, and four of her former graduate students. Every season, we co-create a space rooted in mutual trust, respect and care. We meet on Saturday afternoons for three hours to, using holistic learning principles, share stories of our academic, professional and personal achievements and challenges. In this article, we share and analyze, using the Narrative Inquiry framework, reflections of our experiences within the Circle. Results: Five narrative patterns emerge within our reflections of shared experiences: holistic wellbeing, organic co-construction of knowledge, relationality and belonging in academic spaces, intergenerational learning and knowledge continuity, and reimagining of higher education. Much like Dewey argued, learning is deeply rooted in human connections that foster the continuity of education in a particular setting. Conclusion: Our experience suggests that relational, community-based mentorship, like our Scholarly Gathering Circle, can serve as a powerful contrast to the often-isolating structures of traditional higher education. By centering humanity, care, and reciprocity, without diminishing academic rigour, we can sustain and empower scholars in ways that established models may not. This reflective account outlines how others may create their own scholarly gathering circles within higher education, unrestricted by physical, academic, or geographical space.
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 | 0.012 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.021 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".