Circling the square: Indigenising the dissertation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through tradition and standardization, the structure of the dissertation template has [boxed in] a colonial standard whilst ╔ cornering ╝ ways of knowing that cannot be expressed within these limits. But within these ╔ corners ╝ ideas huddle desperately together, preserving valuable embers of knowledge, conserving strength to ignite a fire to round these ╔ corners ╝ to closer resemble a circle, forcing dialogue between disparate world-views (Ermine, 2007). \n \nThe Doctoral Forum at the Queensland University of Technology [QUT] in Australia brought together an Aboriginal doctoral candidate (at the time) from Australia and an Indigenous doctoral candidate from Canada. Discussion about the limitations of the standard dissertation format arose. While researching in diverse disciplines, we found we shared experiences of constraint and a kind of tug-of-war to address the requirements of the institution while privileging our positionality and standpoint as Indigenous peoples; speaking back to the dominant voices of the coloniser. We reflected on how the template acted to privilege Western institutional constructs and how dominant colonial structures suppress land-based methodologies, creativity, and holism. \n \nThrough our critical dialogues, we recognised that to morph the square of standardization, we must nourish an openness towards multiple ways of knowing and doing through a delicate balance of decolonizing and Indigenizing (Pratt, Louis, Hanson & Ottmann, 2018). This paper addresses how two graduate students are blurring the boundaries of the standardized dissertation structure. Through critical dialogue, the colonial structures that [box] us in, provide a means for the previously ╔ cornered ╝ and marginalized voices to be heard.
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 | 0.046 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.018 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.034 | 0.023 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.021 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.004 |
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".