Duoethnography for Reconciliation: Learning through Conversations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positioned by our different cultural backgrounds and histories, we come together as educators to form an ethical space of engagement to discuss the complexities of truth and reconciliation in Canada. As an opening for our dialogue, we reflect on our earlier research—a duoethnographic reading of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s 94 Calls to Action. We came to this work with little prior knowledge, and mixed feelings of nervousness, reverence, and responsibility. By sharing our journey, we may offer direction and support for others interested in beginning or furthering their own reconciliatory journeys. We invite readers to join in our conversations around coming together, negotiating collective responsibilities, making space for dialogue, and creating safety for making mistakes. As we walk together, we see this as a complex opening of possibilities, which requires continuous and simultaneous circling back and circling forward. Positionnées par nos milieux et nos antécédents culturels différents, nous nous retrouvons ensemble comme enseignantes pour former un espace éthique où discuter des complexités de la vérité et réconciliation au Canada. En guise de début de dialogue, nous réfléchissons sur notre recherche antérieure, une lecture duo-ethnographique des 94 appels à l’action de la Commission de vérité et réconciliation. Quand nous avons commencé ce travail, nous avions peu de connaissances antérieures et ressentions à la fois de la nervosité, de la révérence et un sens de responsabilité. En partageant notre parcours, nous espérons orienter et appuyer ceux et celles qui s’intéresseraient à entamer ou poursuivre leur propre processus de réconciliation. Nous invitons les lecteurs à se joindre à nos conversations portant sur le rassemblement, la négociation de responsabilités collectives, et l’établissement d’un d’espace pour le dialogue où les gens se sentent à l’aise de commettre des erreurs. En se déplaçant ensemble, nous entrevoyons des possibilités complexes qui exigent des mouvements continus et simultanés vers l’avant et l’arrière. Mots clés : réconciliation; duo-ethnographie; appels à l’action; éducation, parcours de vie
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 | 0.025 | 0.048 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.055 | 0.057 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.024 | 0.017 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".